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."

Comments

MS Grasping for Straws

[eldavojohn]

OSS on Windows the Next Big Thing?

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.

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.

Re:MS Grasping for Straws

[pilot1]

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
BASH is a shell, not a kernel. Having it installed won't help you compile anything.

Re:MS Grasping for Straws

[rwven]

Regardless of your experiences, the vast majority of the people on windows are using closed source software. There are obviously (and simply) WAY more open source apps for linux than there are for windows. While there may be enough to do the job for some people, there are not nearly enough to do the job for others. Most (not all) of the windows OSS apps are inferior by leaps and bounds to the closed source alternatives. Firefox and Thunderbird are two obvious exceptions to that. 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.

I've been wishing and hoping for a long time that the OSS on windows movement would expand. I've also noticed a trend recently toward that very end. I'm holding my breath here.

Re:MS Grasping for Straws

[Profane MuthaFucka]

But wait, what if bash WAS a kernel? What if we re-wrote the Linux kernel in Bash? Hmmmm? Linux would run everywhere you had bash! It would be a bash kernel! Now that doesn't seem so dumb now, huh?

Re:MS Grasping for Straws

[the phantom]

You don't think it integrates nicely? In its default configuration, I hardly notice a difference between X apps and Aqua apps. The only thing that I notice is that X apps take just a little longer to load, because X takes a couple seconds to load. I am not saying that you are wrong -- the integration is not perfect, and some improvement wouldn't hurt, but, in my own opinion, X seems fairly well integrated. Could you explain to me what is terribly wrong with it?

Re:MS Grasping for Straws

[laffer1]

Apple's graphical layer is much better than X11. Apple needs an advantage. I'm sure apple could make x11 work even better with the gui as they did with A/UX. If you read up on it, it allowed you to run unix apps by double clicking in the gui and classic apps. Apple's x11 implementation is still fairly good, but a bit of a hassle to start some apps.

Linux people want native stuff too. Not only do they want linux ports of software, but some people even rewrite apps so that they integrate with gnome or KDE better. xine/gxine for instance. In fact, most of the extra open source software out there is just duplicates of what we already had. Aside from one gnu app, I don't know of a replacement for say quicken. I don't see lots of open source games. (this argument is starting to become untrue.. in time.)

Making a native port of an open source program for Windows is a lot of work too. What is the difference?

OSX has quite a bit of open source software for it. Aside from obvious things like bash, tcsh, vim, xorg, apache httpd, php, perl, there are also things that don't come with it!

Apple can never win. Its either criticism for using open source or now they don't have enough. If they had used x11 for everything it would be "why not use linux instead of the copy". Nothing is stopping you from using "Mac OS" with x11... its called gnustep + windowmaker. Try it sometime. Its only about a decade out of date.. but its there. (pronounced: nextstep)

Linux users, do me a favor. Only speak of positives of your OS of choice. Don't sit there and trash every other OS out there. End users don't like "Windows is shitty" as a reason to switch. Why? Most of them think Windows is good enough. That's why they have 90% marketshare. Convince people Linux has new exciting features they can't live without. Play the game the way apple and microsoft do. The real reason you don't do that is because linux doesn't have much to offer over any other OS. Sure there are isolated cases but on a desktop there isn't a single reason to switch for most people. This holds true with mac os, bsd, and other systems as well. In the case of mac os, apple has iApps which appeal to a few people. That's why their marketshare is going up. They still don't have a silver bullet to get windows users to switch. Listen to what people say about mac os! Most complaints that are rational typically mention games. Does linux have lots of game ports? No. (work on that) Give and take constructive criticism. Improve the software. Work with others.

My personal vision is that someday operating systems will be free that work for everyone. I want us to move beyond 100 different choices and get to a few good ones that the poor and rich can use together. Most people I know that have heard of linux think it costs money. Why? They goto best buy and see "linux" for 80 dollars. The windows upgrade is 99 right next to it. What does that tell them? Then they go down the next isle and see box after box of window software. They think.. gee i can't get any software for this "linux" thing. They also may think wow.. nothing for macs either. I guess I have to use windows.

In order to resolve these problems, someone needs to put Linux cds at stores like AOL does. Free disks.. ubuntu or whatever needs to do this. Next, distros need to advertise that the box contains a browser, word processor, and anything else they may want. Perhaps an open source games collection might help too. Remember how you picked your first pc when you were clueless. In my case, I couldn't afford a mac so i got a packard bell because it had more games and other software.

Re:MS Grasping for Straws

[Quarters]

And there's nothing OSS unfriendly about the Windows APIs. The APIs I have access to and documentation for in VisualStudio work equally well regardless of whether or not I create a proprietary or open application.

Re:MS Grasping for Straws

[timeOday]

Most (not all) of the windows OSS apps are inferior by leaps and bounds to the closed source alternatives. Firefox and Thunderbird are two obvious exceptions to that. 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.

Windows just doesn't have a culture of open source. You go to look for some silly little utility, and not only is it closed source, it's $18.95. In my limited past experience, the Mac is even worse - "here's an open source app dressed up with the native Mac widget set! Just $18.95!" Most of the good open source stuff for Windows is a port from Linux or somewhere else.

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. You just say "apt-get install" or "emerge" or whatever and with any luck, you're done.

Re:MS Grasping for Straws

[Zathrus]

There are obviously (and simply) WAY more open source apps for linux than there are for windows

Yes, but so what? Most of the major OSS apps are available on both platforms at this point (or, more likely, many platforms beyond just those two).

Most (not all) of the windows OSS apps are inferior by leaps and bounds to the closed source alternatives

Fine. So use the best tool for the job -- that's basically what the article is saying. As is the grandparent poster. As are you... I think. I'm not sure why you're taking issue with the GP for that matter -- you seem to be saying largely the same thing.

I use Windows at both work and home for my desktop, and Linux/Unix at both for servers. I develop C++ apps for *nix; at work our server code compiles under Windows for one and only one reason -- debugging. And it's a helluva lot easier to use Visual C++ for debugging than trying to beat TotalView into not crashing, or attempting to use gdb on AIX (pain... agony... coredumps).

Most of the apps I use on a daily basis (vim, putty, firefox, virtuawin, cygwin, numerous command line tools, tortoisecvs, and numerous others) are OSS and they or equivalents are available on both platforms. But other apps that I use are not free (in either sense), nor are the games that I like to play at home. And they're all Windows only. The availability of so much OSS software on Windows, however, means that I really can have the best of both worlds.

And for the rare stuff that's just better on *nix -- again, that's where putty and Cygwin come in. But, as you note, the need to run X apps is increasingly rare.

Re:MS Grasping for Straws

[toadlife]

http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/

dd is included. I use these on my Windows servers at work all the time.

Re:MS Grasping for Straws

[spatley]

Yes, but you have VisualStudio. That investment is a significant barrier to many...
No you don't, M$ does give away Visual Studio tools in fully functional and free Express versions like C# Express

Granted, that would not help you with connecting VB6 access applications to mySql ODBC source, but that kind of interoperability is a tall order on any platform.

Who would have thought

[0racle]

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!

Heresy!

[Hikaru79]

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.

Re:Heresy!

[drinkypoo]

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.

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:

"Would I want to put it all on Linux? Yeah, that's the geek in me," Hecht said at this week's O'Reilly Open Source Convention in Portland, Ore. "But the Alfresco application doesn't necessarily run better under Linux."

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:

Both Microsoft Corp. and open-source vendors have traditionally portrayed the choice of whether to use their software as a black-and-white decision. Choose Microsoft Windows' all-inclusive .Net infrastructure, or run the LAMP stack of applications, which includes Linux, the MySQL database, the Apache Web server and one of three programming languages starting with the letter P: Perl, Python or PHP.

One choice promises easier management at a higher price. The other offers lower costs and better security -- at the cost of more complexity.

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.

Free Software jihad

[ettlz]

'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."

Infidels!

Smells Like Astroturf

[telbij]

On the one hand, it's good for clueless IT managers to know they can run OSS on Windows, on the other hand it's been that way forever and anyone who didn't know you could run Apache on Windows shouldn't be managing the web server.

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:

• 
         
• It does what you need now.
• 
         
• Your staff knows it.
• 
         
• You've already invested in it.
• 
         
• Support comes with it.
• 
         
• Your boss has the full-color brochure
• 
         
• It's 'people-ready'

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.

Duh!

[Klaidas]

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.

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.

Windows needs better acronyms

[RingDev]

Windows, IIS, MySQL, PHP - WIMP

-Rick

Re:Windows needs better acronyms

[CableModemSniper]

PHP IIS SQL Server ?

The Challenge For OSS On Windows

[WombatControl]

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.

Capturing Open Source Dollars

[mpapet]

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)

Re:And so

[Jason Earl]

I agree. However, in this case it is Microsoft that is feeling the squeeze. In a lot of cases the Free Software that people want to run on Windows competes directly with software that Microsoft sells. Having this software available for Windows means that it is not necessary to have UNIX knowledge to deploy Free Software applications. However, once you are using Free Software applications on Windows it becomes trivial to migrate to some other platform. Not only does Free Software on Windows loosen Microsoft's grasp on customers, but it makes it much harder for Microsoft to use its market power to embrace and extend protocols.

Bingo.

[Qbertino]

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.

Re:Bingo.

[timeOday]

I'm a devoted linux user, but let me disagree with one point... "just a driver layer." IMHO, device support is THE unsolvable problem for Linux. Too many devices are a crapshoot. Unless vendors ever open-source their drivers, which hasn't happened yet, users will never be able to assume they can buy a device and it will work, with all features supported, when they take it home and plug it in to their Linux box. Scouring message boards for clues about how well something might work before buying anything is a nagging pain I've learned to live with, but I doubt everybody else will.

Bogus Statement

[Lanboy]

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.

Apache, PHP... sure. OOo, no way

[Rob Y.]

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.