Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Closed Source Software and Linux
slashy writes "What is the future of closed source software and Linux? OSWeekly.com delves into the subject and emerges with a possible answer. Quote: "I have been struggling with one major problem lately with the Linux operating system and that problem is the amazing lack of new and exciting software. It's frustrating because by the time said software does finally make its way down to the Linux user, the Windows crowd has been using it for nearly a year or longer.
Perhaps some of this is because there does not appear to be a clear, simple to follow outline cooperative for companies to design for the open source operating system. Arguably this is because of the perceived need to keep things "open," however, I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the closed source community. I am a firm believer that both parties could learn a lot from each other; unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon."
"Lack of new exciting software"? Try xgl/compiz! It's the most exciting software I've seen since a windowing environment!
If you find there isn't enough software for Linux, you haven't browsed your repositories. I'm not saying that "I miss software X" isn't valid but if you think there isn't enough new things to try in general, you are not trying very hard !
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
Summary: I like Outlook, but its not available for Linux. Evolution doesn't work enough like it, and Microsoft is unlikely to release a Linux version of Outlook. Boo-hoo. Why can't we all get along?
I was kind of hoping for something a bit broader than one example heaped with a few generalities...
Apache, mosaic, jabber, etc were started on *nix. But these are server apps. There are many more desktop apps that were started on Windows and then FINALLY ported to *nix. What it will take is to make Linux a competitive place for desktop. Hopefully, as Google moves their apps on over linxu and forces other companies to compete on the same platform, then things may change.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the closed source community"
I believe it is time for the closed source community to grow up and find some common ground with Linux.
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
What is he talking about? Linux doesn't need new or exciting features, it needs further usability improvements and for the products currently available to mature. Feature bloat is not something I wish to see in the GNU/Linux world - function over flash has always been the mantra and it is definitely not outdated.
When there is a gap for new programs, they will be created. When someone needs to get a task done and there isn't a tool, he will scratch that itch - eventually, if enough people have the itch it becomes widespread. I also have no idea where he is coming from about this release gap between windows and linux, unless we're talking about games which is a whole other can of worms.
And finally, has he checked out XGL/compiz? That is some bleeding edge technology that is unmatched currently and definitely some cool stuff to play with. Basically I don't understand what this guy's beef is and how it relates to closed/open source - GNU/linux has all the software it needs being developed and the few closed source vendors who don't want to play nice and port are not the fault of the open vision.
Of course, I am basing this entirely on the summary so who knows. *shrug*
are you kidding me? most innovations now start at the linux level. Aero? Vista eye candy? compiz did it a year BEFORE not AFTER. Workspaces? windows still doesn't have that. all the new desktop usability comes from linux, while windows kept the windows 95 desktop going for 10+ years with minor changes. linux thinks AHEAD not 3 year ago like closed source. OPEN means you can risk new ideas, while CLOSED means risks can rouin you. I chose to take bold new innovations out for a spin.
People who have no sig are cool
Ironically it's the pro applications now that port first. Things like Maya are more and more focasing on Linux. I doubt you'll see most consumer applications paying much attention to Linux anytime soon but the professionals are adopting it faster than any group. The 3D realm likes the power and stability. Photoshop is still dragging it's feet as far as I know but but there are plenty of higher end 3d animating and modelling apps availible and they tend to be released before even the Mac versions.
If you're excited, it's probably because it barely works. We don't need more of that type of software on any OS.
So, what he's saying is that Linux people aren't trying hard enough to make closed software available on Linux? ...
I almost feel like Obviousman here. Linux can't accomodate closed-source software easily BECAUSE IT'S CLOSED AND THUS IMPOSSIBLE TO INTEGRATE SEAMLESSLY INTO OTHER APPLICATIONS. Linux has no obligations whatsoever when it comes to compatibility -- they've published all their docs, spotty though they may be, and they use standards. Microsoft, Adobe, and now-defunct Macromedia have done neither, with some exceptions such as SWF and PDF formats.
If this guy wants more integration, he should stop bitching at Linux, which has an open kernel API; he should stop bitching at GNU, which is completely and totally open. He should be directing his trolling at Microsoft, who has made no efforts to make their software work on top of Linux kernels.
~ C.
Perhaps some of this is because there does not appear to be a clear, simple to follow outline cooperative for companies to design for the open source operating system. Arguably this is because of the perceived need to keep things "open," however, I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the closed source community. I am a firm believer that both parties could learn a lot from each other; unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon."
/. Sorry if you don't like it or don't believe it, but that doesn't make it less true. Or at least, that doesn't it make it less true in the eyes of software developers.
Actually, this is exactly what I have heard from a number of software vendors. I review software and gadgets for a few web sites. One of my testing criteria, particularly for hardware, is if the hardware is Linux-compatible. When it comes to software I always ask if there are any plans to offer a Linux version of the software. The answer that I hear the most often is in regards to a lack of available resources, which I certainly can understand since I review a lot of software form independent companies. But when I question further about asking Linux coders to help with the conversion, the major of companies that have shown an interest in a Linux port say that they've attempted to do so, but the programmers that they approached expect the software to be open-sourced if the company is to get their help. I've even had some developers of software that's geared more towards a particular science admit that they think there would be a huge demand on their software for Linux, but the "requirement" by Linux coders that the software is open-sourced killed the prospect of releasing a Linux version.
As much as I'd like to brush that off as "just an excuse", look at a lot of the replies here on Slashdot about Linux and open-source and you'll quickly see that HE'S RIGHT! I love open-source (or at the very least open standards) just as much as anyone else here and I use it whenever feasible. But there is definitely an assumption among a lot of Linux users that if it's available on Linux the course code has got to be made available or else it doesn't belong on Linux, like it's some kind of plague.
Now, I'll confess that this attitude has been diminishing as Linux eeks its way into the mainstream. The attitude is shifting away from open source and more towards open standards. But there is still a big movement and big preconception that "Linux == Open Source" and "Closed Source != Welcome On Linux".
NOT flaming here, folks. Just relaying what I've been told by software developers and what I've seen here on
No coherent vision with a bunch of competing vendors. One target needs to emerge with the kind of support that Windows has down the whole stack. I've been hearing about Linux taking over this and that for 6 years now, I only see it replacing UNIX.
Its really quite simple.
Linux, and most of the other software distros bundle with it, is all licensed under the GPL, and is generally licensed as such for a reason: the developers are dedicated to Free Software. The question of proprietary kernel drivers, and many other issues, are consistently decided in favour of continuing to strictly adhere to GNU/Free Software standards.
On the other side of the fence, proprietary software is Closed Source in order to maximize revenue. Much of it will stay closed forever, due to legal red-tape, patent skullduggery, shareholder interests, and good old fashioned greed.
And then, most importantly (believe it or not) we have the Users. Sometimes they get what they want, either thanks to a commercial development, or the teeming F/OSS community.
Sometimes, however, they don't get what they want -- they get shafted -- thanks to the interests of whomever controls the copyrights of the technology at issue.
Is it "possible" to write software that will run in linux that does not "require" GPL code? (This is a valid question not a flame)
If I wished to write software for Linux and charge for the software (Not just support) is it realisticly achievable without having to re-write a swag of libraries.
Is support the only way to 're-coup' costs from a research and development, or is the best open source business model to just not bother until someone explicitly pays you to develop the work. Then release it for free (as per the licences) and completely alienate your client as you then supply all your code to the 'community' aka, their competing company who now doesnt have to pay for said OSS product.
DSLIP Web Design and Content Management Australia.
Woohoo, I get to recycle my +5 comment from last night
Proprietary software, as long as it doesn't make the system less free, is not necessarily bad.
For example a proprietary document system that uses open formats and has open APIs does very little to harm the user and potentially fills a niche that cannot be served by free software very well (eg handles certain legal compliance issues, which requires expensive insurance and research).
As long as you *could* write your own software to replace bits of the system, or interoperate with the system, then you dont necessarily have to for the benefit to be very real indeed.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
As has been stated, this article is nothing more than "I want outlook on Linux".
If you take a good look at real world closed source software (ie sold by companies not based in Redmond, WA) you will find most of the top app providers already selling Linux versions of their products. For many, this was a no brainer as they already had Unix (of various flavours) versions of their key products.
Then you get companies like IBM who are (IMHO) actually looking at replacing windows with Linux as the key dev platform. For example, if you look as some of the WebSphere range of products. Until fairly recently, there was always a need for at leat one windows system to act as the dev host. Now, with the switch to Eclipse based dev tools they can also use linux instead of Windows in this key area. Ok, they are not betting the farm on linux succeeding in this area but with each release the need to use windows grows less and less.
Finally,
We don't need Outlook on Linux. What we need is a decent email/groupware client that will interact seamlessly with MS Exchange that provides all the functionality of Outlook but without the underlying problems that it has.
What bugs me about Office 2003 is that outlook had lost its ability to export the account settings. What you have to use is the office exporter which produces a file which is a horrible missmash of Binary & XML (no the binary is not wrapped in XML) that only the office imported can read. I know this is part of the M$ lock in policy but previous versions of lookout so that other email clients can read them easily. So now, you have to import them manually. I get really annoyed with M$ when the go on about their interoperability policy. It if nothing more than pure FUD.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
mazing lack of new and exciting software
Yes, sire, I shalt bow before thee. Am I alone to think such opinions come from the usual thinking-to-be professionals who don't actually use those "exciting" software but find it fashionable to talk about having it and using it and knowing it, etc. ? What is "exciting software" anyway ? There are of course applications which have some purpose and are designed nicer, slicker than the others, some even are more usable than others, some are more professional, etc. Still, "new and exciting software" is a so broad and bland formulation that it makes the whole opinion unworthy of any serious consideration.
Apart from the above, OSes other than Windows happen to have very many good applications for a wide variety of goals (and yes, the job and the goal is what defines what software to use, we don't just use a software because it's "exciting" and "new", unless the special family of what I usually call toy apps), and surprisingly (well, not for us) they are usually developed in a much faster pace than in the case of some other OS. Also, needs of the crowds and recognition of some missing niche software (and the implementation of it) usually happens more frequently and faster in the non-Windows world.
If just talking about the number of maintained and developed apps, and the number of areas these applications target, then Linux is better performing in some of these areas than any other OS out there. There are probably a lot of people who at least once thought how nice would it be if this app existed also on Windows, and guess what, these wishes come true more frequently than not. In my world this is one of the biggest strenghts of FOSS development which also makes such developers much more evolved in my book, since they are mostly developing to be platform-agnostic.
If I were wearing my troll-boots, I'd tell you where to go with those new and exciting software you so hardly seek, but I can't find them so there you go, all I can advise you now is to take a much broader point of view upon the Linux and FOSS world, formulate goals and try to find existing software to achieve your goals, and after experimentation you still feel the lack of those exciting pieces of software, than all you can do is search for other pastures where exciting-software-trees grow by the dozen.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Go ask Microsoft why they lock down their products the way they do, it's not really the OSS community's fault.
the fact remains that I am tired of having to boot back into my Windows install to do some pretty basic stuff. [...] There is one application that cannot be run at all because of its dependency on Internet Explorer - Outlook 2003.
Well if you're sooo dependent on Microsoft products, and you admit it, then you should now understand WHY OSS is so important. We're seeking to empower the individuals, who in today's setup are at the mercy of software companies. And your experience of Linux has only highlighted even more this need to have an open alternative to Windows and its flagship "products".
If you want to exclusively use Linux, then the first thing you need to learn to do is to COMPROMISE. Understand that you'll be better off not using MSN messenger or Outlook, and start looking at the alternatives. We're not here to emulate windows, we're here to offer a different desktop experience.
As for the lack of new interesting things in the OSS world, well I'll just say that you haven't been looking hard enough. Not all the interesting stuff comes in a .deb or .rpm ...
Yes, absolutely. You are free to release Linux user applications under any license you choose. Kernel contributions are a different story, but user-applications are completely up to you.
I'm not sure why companies would need any special outline for Linux. That it's open-source is irrelevant for most software, really. If you're making a kernel module the issue comes into play, but very few things other than actual hardware devices need kernel modules. If you include GPL'd libraries in your software there's a licensing issue, but then if you include any libraries licensed from third parties you've got a licensing issue when you start distributing them and you're going to have to do some negotiating and cough up some money. I don't think there's any GPL'd libraries that apps on Linux have to use, so any app should be able to avoid the issue if they want to. The only thing left is integration into the system:
- Installation of the software. Not much to say here. A simple tar file that can be unpacked and copied under
/usr/local, or that's got an installation script that does the work, should work on any Unix out there including Linux. At worst you've got to add a library directory to /etc/ld.so.conf, but usually a small wrapper script that sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately obviates the need for that. If you want to use the native packaging system you've got to build binary packages, but that's usually straightforward and covered in the documentation for each distro.
- Integration into the system startup scripts. There's a couple of different layouts for the startup script directories, and each distro has it's own little customizations you have to accomodate for perfect integration (things like how the script should check for the software already being started during runlevel changes, stuff like that). But how much software really needs to be set running during startup? Most doesn't, but the few packages that do have some complexity on their hands.
- Desktop integration. This isn't a Linux issue, it's a Gnome and KDE issue (those being the two major ones these days). Their Web sites have guides on how to do this right IIRC, and if you follow them it should work for that desktop on any platform the desktop runs on. Linux is simply another platform.
- Integration with the desktop. Um, this is Unix. There is no single desktop. Any user on the system can run any desktop, and in fact run different desktops at different times. Best bet is to follow the guides for integration, check for each desktop and integrate with all that're installed, and provide a single executable (or a wrapper script) that a user can run from the command line that'll start your app. That last insures users can use your app without any desktop integration at all by simply manually creating a launcher for it where they want one.
- Copy protection. This can be an issue. The world outside Windows is remarkably hostile to the sorts of copy-protection schemes seen in Windows software, and Linux isn't unique in this. License key servers can be used, but they tend to cause more headaches for your customers (even when working properly) than for pirates. Hardware keying is a pain since Unixes tend to hide the hardware so well the detailed information isn't readily available (you can get it, but it takes a fair amount of hackery).
Have I missed anything? I don't think I have, and aside from the issue of copy protection none of the above needs any special communication or coordination between the software vendor and the Linux community or distributions to deal with beyond reading the relevant docs. Maybe it's that the vendors have a problem believing it can be that simple after all these years of dealing with the complexities of Windows?I am a novice linux user who is currently struggling through converting my computers completely to Ubuntu.
It has really been a challenge for me, not so much due to anything wrong with Ubuntu, but because the "aftermarket" software just doesn't exist, or is really poor.
For example, can you believe that there are no good graphical FTP clients for linux? It's true. I have been using gFTP, which most people consider to be the best one, for about a week. It crashes almost daily, isn't very good option-wise, and it is soooo slow. I want something simple, say something like WSFTP for windows, and lo and behold it just doesn't exist. Seems remarkable that a good graphical FTP client doesn't even exist.
The same can be said for a Mavis-esque typing program, and a simple photo editor like the immensely popular Irfanview.
Indeed these are the stumbling blocks for me. Not the distribution, but rather the software inavailability.
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
Businesses do not really care if something is open source or closed source or whatever. This is a fallacy. Businesses care about ROI, pure and simple. And when you care about ROI you want to maximize your returns for a given size of effort. Which in our case, in a very watered down analysis, would mean:
/coralsaw
1. Tapping into high-margin customer segments (server software, niche workstation software)
2. Tapping into the mass market (read: consumer)
In case 1. Linux is King (TM). Look at Amazon, Google, e-Bay, with more coming aboard.
In vase 2. XP is King. Which means there are more desktops to tap, and more consumers that are used to pay for software (or need the software) that run XP on their machines rather than Linux. We all know why, major reason being that traditionally Linux was not Desktop-Newbie-Consumer friendly. With the advent of DNC-friendly distros like Ubuntu, Xandros, Linspire (observe: paid or not!), the segment grows, more business plans result into positive ROI, more new software is written for Linux.
Granted, there are secondary problems in terms of supporting many distros, the fact that FOSS repositories have zillions of "new and exciting" software already for free (if only one could take the time and look at it), etc.
But the initial assertion of the article: open source viz closed source -> no new and exiciting software is a false assertion, I'm sorry to say.
<before>now</before>
Is it "possible" to write software that will run in linux that does not "require" GPL code?
Yes. Most libraries on Linux are released under the LGPL or other licenses that do not force you to distribute source code to applications that link to those libraries. Of course you should check the licence for each library you intend to use first (just as you should in the proprietary world).
As I said, I'm just relaying what other developers have told me. That's all. Take it at face value.
However, you cannot deny that there it a very strong sense of "Make the source code available!" in the Linux community. I'm NOT saying that it's right or wrong, just that it's there. And don't say that Linux coders do not require open source! I've seen postings on Slashdot and other Linux communities that have actually criticized companies for releasing software on Linux but not making their source code available as though it's some kind of expectation! I know enough to take such postings with a grain of salt, knowing that there are extremists in every crowd who will never be satisfied, but what the hell do you expect a developer to think if they had plans on releasing their software but then saw that there's an expectation of releasing their source code?
It's not only possible, it's easy. The main thing to watch is libraries. All you have to do is avoid using libraries available only under the GPL in your program. The only critical libraries that your program will have to use are glibc and the GCC C++ library module, and both of those are under LGPL-style licenses. As long as you dynamically link to them (so the library object code isn't physically included in your executable) you don't have a licensing problem. Other libraries you'll have to look at their license terms to see whether they're compatible and how you have to use them to be compatible, but none of those are required to run on Linux and you can just not use them if you can't find a way to be compatible with their licenses. GTK (Gnome) and Qt (KDE) are probably highly desirable for GUI apps, but GTK's under the LGPL and Qt has a commercial license available so you can use both without having to open-source your code.
Well that's what SourceForge claims as registered projects but it's not necessarily sane.
Let's break it down a bit:
39,000 pieces of reasonably usable software (beta + release); in fact it's probably far fewer (considering many projects either duplicate or inherit functionality from other projects, or are no longer active). Hardly over 120,000 though.
There are more uses for a computer other than a glass typewriter, a ledger book or a toy.
One last comment about the example - Outlook not so good. Nearly every other email client stores data in a form that can be recovered by a even a text editor or by tools from the same vendor - not an obfiscated database that requires dodgy shareware tools to fix.
Here is a point many Slashdotters are missing, when they see the word "Closed Source".
Closed source should not be defined as anything packaged in disks or as installable on the local machines. The majority of closed source is now disguised as Web Applications. When we raise arms against Microsoft, we are supportive or at best silent about the dozens of useful web applications that spring up. Google Maps, Spreadsheets, BaseCamp and the rest are as closed source as Microsoft are. And so are the algorithms that power things like search engines.
As Google and others bring newer applications on the Web, and as the desktop applications get replaced by Web Applications we will have "Closed Source 2.0".
Actually they might be worse that the current breed of closed source.
- When Web Applications shut down you have nothing!
- You dont have code to reverse engineer
- Hell, you don't even have the data with you
- You have no idea what they do with your data!
- Can we depend on their security?
Life is a conviction.
You want Outlook on your screen - no problem - just export it via X windows from your MS windows box to wherever you are. You mean that hasn't worked since NT 3.51? OK - it looks like you are stuck with MS windows since VNC is too much of a pain for constant use - but you can do things the other way with an X server on your windows box letting you run things remotely at full speed on other machines on the network. Exceed, cygwin and many other implementations of X Windows on MS Windows let you do this.
The single user non network aware model still exists with MS Windows - the idea of exporting an entire terminal session is still about as clunky as an IBM 3270 terminal from decades past. Thankfully it only cuts one way - almost everything else works OK with MS Windows over a network even if MS Windows works with practicly nothing else.
As a long time Gentoo user I have dealt with many problems over the years trying to use a Linux distro as a main desktop OS. And I have finally come to the conclusion that Linux on the desktop is not only dead, but never really got started.
I sit in chatrooms trying to help newbies and all I hear is "is there a Linux app that works like " And when you point them to the Linux equivalent they come back stating that the product you pointed them to is incomplete. Take Office and Openoffice.org for example. Sure Office is very bloated, but it is also the defacto standard and Openoffice has never been and probably never will be 100% compatible.
Another example is the day to day life of a web surfer, videos and flash from the web. All the interfaces available for Linux to stream video are so clunky that they are nearly unusable. And don't even get me started on Flash. It just sucks on Linux.
And then you have the poor hardware support. I have two laptops and two desktops. My two laptops are completely out of the question as most of the hardware is too new to be fully supported. Everything from native LCD resolutions to no native support for the wireless card. And on my desktops, one still runs Gentoo as a server, which Linux is ideally suited for, the other, in order to play games (which once again is pathetic on Linux) I have to run that other OS.
So to all the fanatics and fanboys, Linux will never be a force on the consumer's desktop. It's not bad on the business desktop because of its management capabilities and actually because of some of the flaws listed above (no worrying about employees watching movies or wasting time on Flash games). And in the back room Linux is the light in a once dark world with its power and plethora of server software.
Until the hardware manufacturers start writing native drivers (and aren't vilified for keeping their company secrets hidden) and until the major software manufacturers begin to believe that Linux is a viable consumer platform, Linux on the desktop is dead.
The author made some good points, but I'm confused why he didn't mention the Linux Standards Base. Aren't these issues exactly what the LSB is supposed to address?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think closed source software is really the main issue for most Linux users. New software is what we lack. Many people are using NVidia video cards with a closed source driver and playing Doom 3 which is also closed source. For example, I want Photoshop and Dreamweaver and Nero (the real one) to run natively in Linux.
-- Ghodmode
"the closed source community" ??
yeah, that's like saying "the borg individuality"!
Closed source "community"? I don't even really feel there is much of a real community in open source, but if there's one there, there's even less of a one in proprietary software. It's not two big blobs of people totally separate from each other forming different opposing communities that are bound together and will work with each other. A lot of people that have a job coding proprietary software spend some of their non work time coding open source software.
I've worked at two different (proprietary) software companies so far, and there has been zero sense of a community with other software companies - it's mostly outright hostility, with very ocassional cooperative work when we were doing some work with a hardware company, and some very basic, half arsed file format interop when customers demanded it.
Replying to this Flamebait Troll of an article? This is what I was doing when I refereshed my Slashdot page and found this chump spewing misinformation:
In our site, we've got Active Directory for a group of 700 systems, and about 1200 users. I think Craptive Directory is a better word for this piece of junk. We tried migrating from Win2K server to Win2K3, and the damn thing called domain-prep and forest-prep threw out an error page some 500 meters long. Smoke's coming outta' my ears just reading reams and reams of error messages.
So, I ask the security chap..
What if we migrate to a better Directory server.. we're thinking of OpenLDAP or Fedora Directory Services. I asked this bloke to backup Active Directory, just in case. He says It Can't Be Done!!! It's just not possible to take a backup of the bloody damn POS s/w that's used to store the company's most valuable information. It's JUST NOT POSSIBLE TO transfer it to a better config. or even upgrade to a higher version smoothly. Seriously, why people ever choose Crapware like Active Directory, Exchange, LookOut or Office is beyond me.
And so, we're sitting down, thinking long hard thoughts... wondering what we should be doing, to ensure we're fine, atleast 2 years from now... some points: (Actually this bloke Matt Hartley may have done us a big favour - he's made all the wrong arguments and points in one piece!)
I. Use ONLY open standards and specs. No compromise on this at any cost.
1a. We've decided to go in with HTML for 'documents'. Why do we need docs? We need to look at them, we need to print them, we need to email them so others can see, and we need to be able to write tools that can manipulate OUR data in OUR docs. And so, it's gonna be HTML from here on out. The Nvu editor seems the best suited for this thing, so we're going with it.
1b. We don't use spreadsheets a lot. For those rare cases, we've decided to go in for Gnumeric, and csv as the format. No more of those bloody macros in the a/cs dept. We've developed all their apps on a server, we're giving them Import and Export to cvf where needed, and that's it.
1c. PowerPoint: We've told the suits to go in with Impress for the time being... under OpenOffice. Until we figure out the best Open Source tool for presentations, that works to Open Standards, that is. All told, we have very few suits.. less than a dozen, so let them start picking up these skills NOW!
II. Groupware: No more fiddling around with the Exchange Server or the Notes server trying to figure out how to build some site-specific features we need. No point. We've figured the only thing MS or IBM care about is licensing money, not adherence to standards, delivering something useful to us, or anything. They just want license money, so we're looking elsewhere.
We're also trying to build in some CRM functions... we heard Dynamics works only under Craptive Directory, so we're giving it a miss. SugarCRM seems useless without their commercial license, so we're ditching it too.
We're experimenting with vTiger, Drupal, Mambo, phpBB and Moodle.. yes, Moodle. It looks the easiest of the lot to actually build community-oriented features, and has the most elegant of interfaces. No need for any client, no Evolution, no Zimbra, no nothing. Just a customised Groupware client that does the job for us. That works the way we like. That helps our users relate to what software we provide them.
So, we asked ourselves, what are we doing with our email system?
1. Announcements, Circulars and Notifications: We've decided to have them at the top of our Groupware page. Every intended recipient to indicate they've read the message.. some option for a feedback. No more tons of "Read" messages to the sender, no more Acknowledgement emails... no nothing. Just a one-page report to the Sender of which users have Read, Not Read, and Comments. That's it for this category of mails.
2. Calendaring: We figured out this is not really important for all users, and the few who need it, need it in diffe
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Look, I have no problem with people using Windows (I do myself a little), I have no problem with people disliking command-line tools in Windows or Linux but can *both types* of people please STOP imposing their view of the world on the rest of us! Now!
The fact is that NOBODY (repeat N-O-B-O-D-Y) can appreciate the power of a Linux or UNIX operating system until you dive into the command line, learn shell, Python, Perl or another scripting language and start putting together INCREDIBLY POWERFUL AND VERSATILE TOOLS yourself.
For the uninitiated, from the shell prompt in Linux or UNIX you can log into remote systems, view web pages, burn CDs, rip CDs, play MP3s, convert images, perform countless system diagnostics, edit files, etc. etc. On top of this, you can do some of the most amazingly powerful text manipulation using complex regular expressions that end up looking like a spider has crawled across your screen with inky feet. Admittedly, to a GUI-based user, none of this looks particularly "exciting" but when all of these tasks can be combined in countless ways within scripts, NOTHING (repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G) within a GUI environment comes CLOSE for automation and sheer power.
No, I'm not a command line zealot. I believe it's up to the user to decide what software/OS they are comfortable with, I personally have favourite tools in Windows, Gnome, KDE, BASH and even MS-DOS and I just use whatever I need to use to get a job done as quickly as possible. But the fact is that the UNIX command line is the most common place for me to work in.
But to all the uninitiated out there, please do not voice opinions on a subject you do not fully understand. Linux and Open Source is NOT waging some kind of anti-Windows war with the goal of total Microsoft destruction - it's an ALTERNATIVE way of doing things where everything is done in an open fashion and the sole aim is to write useful, usable but NOT NECESSARILY PRETTY software, nothing more.
And if you're waiting for Linux to drop into your lap as a ready-packaged alternative to Windows that you can immediately start using like Windows from day one, then I'm afraid you're in for a long wait. To become a Linux user means taking more time to learn about how your computer works and, to be an effective Linux user, ramping up your learning curve so that you know how to take best advantage of the wealth of excellent free software that has become available to you.
If you're not willing to devote that time then, so be it. Stick with what you are comfortable with and enjoy it with my blessing - just don't be so quick to judge the rest of us.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Seriously now...
...and if you are indeed arguing that desktop Linux is nonexistant, then you're a goddamned ignorant troll.
when Linux shows multi-BILLION dollar profits
Linux and the GPL weren't designed to make money (though some people do make money off of Linux); they SAVE people money.
SUCCESSFUL business strategy
News flash: "Linux" in and of itself is not a business. And last I checked Red Hat and IBM were doing alright.
With the exception of servers and anti-virus software, Linux is far, far away from being a serious threat to Windows (and Macs.)
I have 5 machines in active use in my house. All of them dual boot XP/Ubuntu. No matter what machine I'm working with, when (re)installing XP I have to deal with the installer's MBR-related retardation and I have to hunt down and manually install the drivers for the network card, video card, and sound card. With the latest release of Ubuntu, ALL of my hardware is detected right out of the box. 3d-acceleration doesn't work, of course, but there are a few third party applications such as EasyUbuntu which automatically set this up for me. Installing Ubuntu and running EasyUbuntu is easier and by default requires less user input than XP and doesn't require hunting down drivers, and after it's done I can watch DVDs, check my email, surf the web, open or create MS Office documents using OpenOffice.org, play from a vast selection of Linux games (no, they're not Battlefield 2 but they're hella better than just Pinball, Minesweeper, Solitaire, Freecell, and Hearts... varients of which are all of which are included in the Ubuntu repositories, btw), easily install and run most simple Windows programs under Wine, and easily upgrade every single application on my computer with two mouse clicks.
Yes, there are still plenty of rough spots, but its flaws aren't 1/100 as bad as the flaws Windows 98SE had. 99% of XP's non-gaming desktop functionality is there, and the remaining 1% is largely a result of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices and/or Window's momentum (Windows-only programs/drivers/APIs, IE-only websites, etc.) And on top of Window's functionality, you get immunity to most forms of malware, the benefits of the Debian package managment (makes InstallShield look like rocket science in comparison, and it automatically keeps your stuff up to date), and all-around predictability and stability--weird stuff still occasionally happens, but it isn't an constant, everpresent fact of life like it is with XP. (And don't give me that "XP/2000 is just as stable as *nix" argument--that'scrap. It's a big improvement over 9x, but that's akin to saying Ramen noodles is an improvement over eating dog crap. It still crashes. It still causes apps to crash. It still behaves in an extremely unpredictable fashion--problems seemingly coming out of nowhere--at least a couple times a month.)
In terms of market share no, no it isn't a threat, but then Linux isn't a business, so market share isn't a terribly fair metric. Linux can thrive (and indeed has) even on an extremely small user base; Windows cannot.
I hearby pronounce the neverending joke about this finally being the "year of the Linux Desktop" officially dead. Linux IS on the desktop, and my grandmother DOES use it for everything most people use Windows for--email, web browsing, music, watching movies, casual gaming.
I'd just like to say my PC was propping up dust until I discovered MythTV. After I read the myth features page I immediately backed up my personal stuff, wiped WinXP and installed Ubuntu Breezy. I've not been this excited about computing since I went to university and started using the web for the first time.
I was disappointed when I learned of all the limitations of XP MCE (*why* can't I play a DVD on one machine and watch it on a different TV?? It's mine isn't it?) and Mr. Demerijan off of the Inq mentioned mythtv to me.
Now I dream of multi TB servers with many DVB-T and S tuners and diddy mini ITX boxes under every TV.
Some day, eh? Not exciting my rosy red arse.
J1M.
Linux and the GPL weren't designed to make money (though some people do make money off of Linux); they SAVE people money.
I should clarify-- by "people", I meant companies as well. Hence, close sourced companies should learn to grow up and play well with Linux not because they can sell it, but because they can save money. Plus, since it's open source, they can easily modify any part of it as needed (they don't even have to redistribute the changes, so long as they don't distribute the binaries outside the company.)
As far as business desktop vs. home desktop needs go, I'd say Linux is even more suited for work environments because gaming is (usually) discouraged, user rights management is much better, and there's certainly no lack of development tools available for Linux.
To the GP:
You say that OSS community doesn't want Nvidia to open source their driver (which is wrong, I've seen many demands for just that), they only want them to provide an open spec so the OSS community can write its own drivers.
Did you ever think that Nvidia doesn't want their hardware run by homebrew drivers, because they'll catch the flack when those drivers act whacky? Joe Blow buys some Lindows machine with some OSS Nvidia driver written by who-the-hell-knows, and when that driver acts up, Nvidia gets the blame. I understand Nvidia perfectly on this issue.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
It's not our problem, though - the desktop sucks. It's full of stupid people who are scared at the thought of thing new or different from what they're used to, people with no common sense who bury their heads in the sand whenever something goes wrong, people used to the released-software model where anything not in a shiny shrink-wrapped box is no good.
You say you sit in chatrooms trying to help people. You should know that.
Heck, the guy in the article was complaining that Evolution doesn't work like Outlook. Well, yeah. I think that's a good thing, as I don't like Outlook, but he's too narrow-minded (or possibly prejudiced) and thinks that Evolution is bad because it's different.
The obvious fix to this "problem", to stop people complaining, is to give them something that they're used to. And to do that, Linux would have to be more like Windows.
I'll say that again, if you're just skimming and didn't catch it: To make Linux ready for the desktop, it would have to be more like Windows - that is, worse.
I've had people say that Emacs sucks because it uses funny combinations like C-x C-s and C-c. I mean, why can't it just use normal shortcuts, like Word does? I for one cringe when C-w closes a window instead of deleting a word, and M-t doesn't swap words instead of doing whatever the hell it does in Word (opens the Tools menu?) and think that C-k is far too important to waste on a stupid function like adding a hyperlink, but I'm not part of the different-is-bad crowd.
These same people throw up their arms and complain when OpenOffice doesn't do things the same way as Word, or The GIMP doesn't do things the same way as Photoshop. It's not a case of unlearning the old way and learning the new, it's flat-out refusing to do anything. There's more of a case for OpenOffice than The GIMP here, but Microsoft Office isn't the epitome of good user interface design, and OpenOffice is allowed to change things for the better here and there. (Soooo many toolbars)
Linux doesn't "need" anything. Linux won't "die" if it doesn't support the "killer aps". I don't use Flash or Photoshop or Office or any of those things. Oh no, I must be dead.
I'm going to agree with your point here, but possibly not for the reasons you imagined. To all the fanatics and fanboys, Linux will not be on the consumer's desktop for a long time. It's intrinsic. Linux won't become popular unless it's more like Windows, and becoming more like Windows is not a direction I want it to go in.
Linux has, however, reached a point where anyone self-determined can download Linux, install it, and use it with a minimum of fuss. There might be problems on the way, and things might be a little bit different, but if someone is clever enough to install Linux then they're unlikely to be swayed by things like that.
That's far from "dead".
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
I truly don't understand open source fanatics. The marketplace is huge! There is room for everyone, from closed source, to open source.
The beauty of open source is that it greatly reduces the barrier to entry for anybody with more time than money to create a business. Four years ago I had an idea for an online business, so I asked a couple of engineer buddies of mine of how to implement it as I had no programming experience whatsoever, except that one semester of Pascal in highschool. I didn't have the money to drop $1,000+ for SQL Server or Oracle, but open source and the plethora of online tutorials were there for anyone willing to spend the time and learn.
Too many people think that open source has to compete with closed source, and more times than not, it doesn't. Every time someone chooses an open source solution, it doesn't necessarily mean that a closed source solution has lost a sale, it could mean that someone has decided to offer a product or service that he otherwise would not have due to lack of capital, as was my case.
Now, sometimes we use open source solutions, sometimes closed source, whatever happens to be the best solution (as far as we can tell) at the time. Quit worrying about open source having to create the best, cutting edge, products, and be happy with what it has allowed small companies around the world to do--compete affectively with the big boys.
So don't worry about it; there's a place for both and quit being so insecure about it.
Whith this Linex crap, where do I get a copy of Outlook? Norton AV? SpyBot? MS Pop-up Blocker? ZoneAlarm? And what about those fun, free, animated emoticons? Where are they? In fact, with Linix I've completely lost the little blue tray guy that pops up when a friend wants to chat. Can you believe it? Talk about boooooorrriiiing!
They are busy patenting every obvious thing on the planet trying to make sure that something exciting and origional CANT be created. OSS programmers do not have multi million dollar LEgal teams to fight the asshole companies that believe they own exclusive rights to something as trivial as a bubble sort or something that has been done for hundreds of years but now "on a computer" so either the programmers must work in secret and release in a country that is not stupid enough to have redicilous IP laws or risk getting sued.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I wouldn't say it's the fault of the developers, it's just many don't know how to write good SW. Yet even that isn't their fault because they never were taught how to write good SW since even teachers and professors mostly don't know.
Anyone who has worked in IT for more than a year or two should realise that retraining is important. You should not rely only on the things you learned many years ago. Poor software is the fault of the developers. To rely only on teachers is not good enough. Developers who aren't prepared to put at least a little of their own time into keeping up to date and retraining themselves should not be in this business.
Writing good SW is quite simple all you have to do is follow some good guidelines, the tricky part is what or where are these guidelines.
I have been writing software for 30 years, and I don't think writing good software is simple. Requirements keep changing. The approaches you have to use for a simple command-line program are often different from those for a GUI app, or a web app, or a real-time app. Sure, you can start with basic ideas of good structure and good documentation, but that is the barest essentials. There are testing and debugging skills that can take years to develop.
Hell, don't get me wrong, I run linux myself. But an innovator? I'm sorry but MOST of the innovation on the desktop (currently) comes from one place, and it isn't Linux, nor is it Windows.
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
red herring. That's exactly the situation for anyone who buys gear shipped with Ubuntu, Suse SLED 10, or any of a half dozen other big distros. They ship with the nv driver only. No one blames Nvidia, they contact their vendor and ask for help.
It's not only possible, it's easy. The main thing to watch is libraries.
/usr/local/firefox/firefox-bin | wc -l
Spoken like someone who's truly never done it.
Libraries are the hard part. Take a look at any non-trivial application and look to see how many libraries it takes for various things.
ldd
43
Now, if I want to develop a big application, I will eventually need to do something that's already coded in some library. Maybe it's XML parsing or HTTP connections or SSL or whatever:
FOR EACH LIBRARY DO
1. Figure out *where* the license is.
2. Make an informed guess whether it's legal before you even try it.
3. Oh shit, it's the "libgumple Public License", not something obvious like GPL. Now I have to read 37 pages of legalese.
4. Give up, and forward it to the company lawyer who charges $500 an hour to say "No, you can't because of clause 33.4.2 paragraph 9, subsection B".
5. Write it ourselves, anyway or go without. Then deal with users that say: "Hey, Firefox does this, but you don't. Why can't you? How hard can it be?"
DONE
This, by no means of the word, is "easy". It is time-consuming and expensive.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Well, yes, but then your example is of an open-source program that can freely use open-sourced libraries (for the most part). If you're writing your own app it starts out using no libraries. You then get to decide as you find a need for libraries which ones you'll use. Yes, you'll not be able to use a lot of common libraries and stay closed-source because those libraries are open-source. Similarly, open-source software can't use a lot of commercial libraries and stay open-source. It's a simple matter of deciding whether using the library's valuable enough to justify any license changes required.
Of course, if you use third-party commercial libraries you've got the additional problem of getting them to provide a Linux version you can use. Many vendors won't do that and without those libraries your app may not work. If you've got customers who want to pay you for a Linux version, ponder the lost revenue and consider that you're experiencing exactly why a lot of Linux users don't like closed-source software. As a software developer I find myself saying this a lot: "If I've got the source code I can fix the problem. If I don't, we're SOL.".
There's another def at work in a lot of the FUD. For TFA's author, Matt Harley "desktop user" means "user who got locked into a bunch of Microsoft or windows-based closed-source applications, often despite warnings about the potential for lock-in if heshe chose that stuff."
Now they're ready to check out Linux, and they're pist b/c there are only 17 email/calendar apps available. There should be 18! And the 18th has to be Outlook!
Now, it's not polite for the Lx crowd to just go "told you so" -- but the fact that this user is locked in is not a flaw in Linux. And when they open up the conversation in that way, they're going to get snide responses.My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love