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...
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I wish to see in the GNU/Linux world - function over flash has always been the mantra and it is definitely not outdated.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*
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.
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
Why would any company want to open their source code and share their intellectual property with everyone? Hours later, someone would be trying to sell a rebranded version of their hard work.
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.
There will come a time when proprietary software will be routinely written for Linux, but I would prefer it didn't happen too soon. At the moment, the consequence of proprietary software developers ignoring Linux (and other FOSS OSs) is that open source developers are having to create the entire software stack.
The FOSS community won't just be developing an OS, but office apps, graphics tools, audio, video, CAD etc. It makes the task of creating a viable alternative to Microsoft harder, true, but the end result will be that an entire suite of FOSS software will exist for the platform by the time commercial interests start noticing the market.
At the moment, the lack of pressure from commercial interests is allowing the FOSS solutions to develop at their own pace, so the longer the proprietary companies keep shooting themselves in the foot by ignoring Linux, the better. Given time, any company wishing to compete in the Linux market will have to produce software which is significantly better than the established FOSS tools, and that has to be good for us computer users.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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.
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 ...
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.
It's called Konqueror. It has these wonderful things called 'ioslaves' which can be accessed by special 'protocols'. Not only does it support browsing the local filesystem and the web, but also ftp sites (ftp://ftp.gnu.org), secure ftp (sftp://blah), info and man page viewing (info:/libc, man:/fstab), and a whole host of other resources. And it presents a unified and self-consistent interface to all of them.
There are fantastic GUI clients for FTP on Linux, and sometimes you don't realize you're already using one on a day to day basis (assuming you're a KDE user).
Pirate Party UK
On the other hand, I am finding proprietary operating systems becoming less useful all the time. For instance, does MS's refusal to open up NTFS hurt its competitors? Not really, linux has great file systems available to it, so one place I would have potentially had a dual setup, I went all linux because I didn't want FAT32 (no permissions), nor can Windows interface with a lot of the file systems I use out of the box.
The same can be said with Open Office vs Microsoft Office in regard to open documents. I am finding closed documents a hassle because that means I can use only a very limited subset of apps to manipulate said document - and not every should be a one size fits all (except emacs:) )
I'm probably the exception these days, as with some hassle, drivers can be added to Windows to let it read other filesystem, and Open Office can run on Windows.
But other benefits of Open Source are repositories, as you mention, and I find the convenience of one central spot on my computer to download and automatically install known good software with a few button clicks (sans spyware/adware) beats any Windows experience hands down (which usually includes searching the web, downloading, installing, hoping it's not malware, adware, etcetera for every app).
I really could not see going back to something like Windows. It just seems like too much work and money. Quite a reversal from the Linux experience like around 1999 or so.
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....
the end result will be that an entire suite of FOSS software will exist for the platform by the time commercial interests start noticing the market.
Whilest I will always to choose open solutions over closed ones where possible, I'm not convinced that having the entire software suite implemented before the closed source people take notice is necessarilly a good thing (if that were even possible). The closed software producers are often large corporations with a lot of marketting muscle and Linux may well benefit from them promoting their Linux versions of their software (and thus promoting the whole OS).
I mean, lets that a theoretical example:
Lets say Adobe ported PhotoShop to Linux. They put a bit of marketting behind it and a large chunk of PhotoShop users migrate over to Linux. (Ok, I guess this isn't necessarilly the best example since they're pretty attached to their Macs, but bear with me). A migration to Linux like this would give it quite a boost in the desktop market.
Conversely, let's just imagine that The GIMP gets as good as (or better than) PhotoShop before Adobe start caring about Linux. So now they have a viable free (as in beer) competetor to their rather expensive product. Are they actually going to want to promote Linux (which usually ships as standard with The GIMP)? Of course not, they're going to want to use their marketting weight to push people away from Linux in the hope that they can keep as many people as possible from discovering that they can get something as good as PhotoShop for free.
Yes, ok, so The GIMP is available for other platforms, but people are more likley to discover it if it's already installed when they get their computer.
Given time, any company wishing to compete in the Linux market will have to produce software which is significantly better than the established FOSS tools, and that has to be good for us computer users.
It's worth noting that (in my experience) most commercial decisions are not based on "what's best for the job" or even "what gives the most bang for our buck". I've lost count of the number of times employers have forced me to use some very expensive piece of software that really is nowhere near as good at the job as some FOSS software. In most of these cases, the expensive commercial software is a good 10 years behind the free equivalent. Many of these purchasing decisions seem to basically just be made on the "noone ever got fired for buying IBM" premise (replace "IBM" with any large corporation who has been selling expensive software for a long time).
http://blog.nexusuk.org
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!