As you read on, please keep in mind that I'm not trying to make the blanket statement that developing software for Windows is Evil. I'm speaking strictly about Free Software desktop applications being ported to Windows (and to a somewhat lesser extent MacOS X, too).
It's All About the Applications
All other things being equal (which they aren't, but that's another story), the vast majority of users select which operating system to run based on the applications available for it.
This is not a modifiable behavior because applications are what enable people to get things done, be that making a spreadsheet or playing a game. If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows. Conversely, if the applications they want are to be found only on Linux/BSD, they will eventually end up using Linux/BSD.
By porting Free Software to Windows one increases the number of valuable applications on that platform, and since application availability is a key factor in operating system usage, we can do the math pretty easily: if Windows has Microsoft applications plus the stable of Free Software apps while desktop Linux/BSD/etc has only the Free Software apps, why would anyone in their right mind switch to Linux/BSD (and incur the training and data migration costs) when they already have all the software they need and want right in front of them? They have no reason to. None. Ergo, they won't.
To see how this plays out, let's look at an example ripped from today's headlines: FireFox.
FireFox: Enabling Windows Users .. To Use Windows
I think we can all agree that FireFox gives Windows users a way out from the security nightmare and feature desert that is Microsoft's Internet Explorer. At least, Internet Explorer as it appears in 2004. FireFox does this while allowing users to stay on the Windows platform. Meanwhile, Microsoft is not porting any applications to Linux/BSD, nor will they start to do so anytime soon. And so the application imbalance begins...
Survey people using FireFox on Windows. How many of them are saying, "I'm so impressed I'm going to switch to a Free Software desktop." Virtually zero. Too many of us in the Open Source community naively expect people to draw conclusions that today's technology consumers are not motivated, let alone empowered, to make.
The more software we port to Windows the more we reinforce this application availability imbalance and strengthen the user's inertia to stay on Windows. If users had to make a choice between Windows or Linux (or BSD) when it came to getting access to better applications they would find they had a motivation to switch. And switch they would.
Consider: why do you think Apple invests so heavily in their iApp series of programs? and why was Apple so hesitant to port iTunes to Windows?
This implies that there's a downside for Open Source when users stick with Windows. What is that downside?
The Downside
As long as Microsoft can keep people on Windows they will have the necessary time to improve their applications and more importantly the supporting software stack. That stack includes the kernel, system libraries and application components that enables their own software to integrate and perform better than the competition's. They used this before to root out competitors like Lotus 1-2-3 and DR-DOS and they'll do it again. It's too easy and too obvious not to.
As FireFox takes market share from IE, Microsoft will fight back not just with improvements to Internet Explorer but with investments in operating system and "desktop environment" development that will give Internet Explorer unanswerable advantages over FireFox. People will once again switch back to IE and FireFox will be Netscape all over again. Worst, the Mozilla project will not be able to muster a meaningful response because they do not have access to the playing field (the underlying software stack) that Microsoft will have beat them on. You can not compete on a playing field to which you do not have access.
This is why FireFox needs Linux/BSD to survive in the long term: we aren't trying to kill FireFox, but most importantly we don't have a way to kill FireFox even if we wanted to.
On Windows it's a very different story. As long as Microsoft controls the Windows technology stack (and they will never give that control up) they will have the ultimate ability to out-compete any 3rd party software on Windows that they wish to. Because the pain of millions of Windows users is eased by FireFox, Microsoft has been given the space they need to improve their software without people leaving the Windows platform while they perform the needed improvements.
By porting software to Windows, we eliminate the majority of the competitive advantage of Free Software desktops in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of consumers while Microsoft has all the rope they need to shut the door once again on us. We have left our flank exposed while expending our efforts improving the position of the unfriendly force.
Meanwhile We Starve Ourselves...
Making the situation even worse, by keeping people on Windows we decrease the odds of them getting involved and contributing back to the community. This is because the tools necessary to do so are relatively rare on Windows. How many Windows users have debuggers or compilers or even receive awareness marketing on the part of their primary software vendor (Microsoft) to "Get Involved and Give Back"? Moreover, resources that could be spent making the Open Source desktop environments more compelling are instead being spent on making Windows more compelling in the form of superior applications.
Microsoft owes us a big "thank you" when you think about it: we are giving them the opportunity to react on the playing field they most effective on while we are limiting our own resources.
Who Needs Friends?
This "strategy" ensures Free Software desktops remain a 5% fringe in the market. This translates to ISV interest in desktop Linux/BSD being kept to a barely noticeable minimum. In turn this means fewer software packages, which in turn means even fewer reasons for people to use Free Software operating systems. Can you hear the dominoes falling as they approach?
Free Software desktop applications on Windows represent a no-win situation for Open Source, but Open Source desktops on Free Software operating systems do. It's now up to us to pick our directions and to pick them carefully.
Today, I look at kdelibs/win/ and grow concerned.
181 comments:
Well, you've unsettled me, that's for sure.
You've got a valid argument in my view. After all, it's "Build it and they will come", not "Build it in two places, one beside them, and they will eventually visit the other".
Surely we must have some layers of porting to encourage transitions. Primarily I'm thinking OOo here, since MS's two biggest warhorses are Windows and Office.
But for the majority of programs, I get the feeling you're right. Are we becoming too concerned with getting maximum audience exposure for individual applications with too little thought for the bigger picture?
- Nathan Adams
This is very true Aaron. Except for one important aspect:
Sometines, the platform is in fact not the OS. Specifically, for OOo it is the file format, and for Firefox, it is the internet standards.
We _need_ firefox and OOo, because the remove locks from Microsoft.
This is not true for all apps: having scribus, inkscape, the Gimp, LaTeX, octave, or recently Gnumeric does not help at all.
So from a strategic point of view, as the biggest locks to the windows stronghold are the IE quirks and the Office file formats, I think Firefox and OOo are necessary.
> We _need_ firefox and OOo,
> because the remove locks from Microsoft.
i would agree if that's the effect FF and OOo have. but it isn't. OOo only removes locks if it has perfect filters on Linux. having perfect filters on Linux in no way depends on having OOo on Windows.
FireFox is a bit different, because it can influence people to write correct HTML and JavaScript on web pages. but the truth is that it isn't HTML and JavaScript that provides the browser lock in on Windows. it's the Windows-specific plugins and ActiveX crap.
konqi does a pretty damn good job of mimicing IE's HTML and JS quirks; if it had the attention of FireFox it would probably do a perfect job.
now, if FireFox can ween people on Windows off of ActiveX and windows-only plugins, then it is indeed doing something very important.
yes, there are no blanket statements, and there will be times that porting an app will have strategic advantages.
but, as you note, it's the wholesale "put everything on windows" that is so dangerous. OOo is in that crowd too, IMHO.
actually, i will make one addendum here to my last comment: OOo could have a positive "unlocking the chains that bind us" effect if enough people use it, as that would then allow people to swap OOo format files about (which is also good for KOffice, maybe even more so than OOo due to KOffice's MS Word/Excel filters compared to OOo's =)
however i don't know what it would take to move people off of the "dot doc" format. i'm starting to get OOo and KOffice documents in email, but virtually 100% of business traffic is MS Word format (except from strange people like lawyers who seem to LOVE WordPerfect in this town)
so, anyways, yes, if OOo could move the standard away from "dot doc" that would "dot rock"! ;-P the question is will it? or, how can it? are there OOo-format (OASIS, i guess) filters available that plug in into MS Word / Excel / etc? if not, it's nearly a moot point.
Don't think as a geek, people are sometime not aware of opensource, while we develop a real alternative to win/macos os, they get used to software that just work.
When we get on par to the win/macos twins, the argument of opensource software being evil, viruslike, bad to research and so on, will be unraisable !
For that thanks to those multi platform software ;)
--
Arno - dreaming maybe...
Just to play devil's advocate for a bit here...
The average person doesn't switch OSs on a whim, only when they have to -- their existing one gets killed by viruses/spyware, new computer, etc. If they already payed for Windows, and it works well for them, then they are likely to stick with it. Contrary to popular opinion, if Apple were to release OSX for x86, it would not immediately conquer the world. People just don't care enough about their computers to bother. So the only real time Linux has a chance to snag some users is at these 'upgrade points'. Now, let's see the following scenario:
User A: Uses Windows complete with Microsoft applications -- Office, MSNM, IE, and so on.
User B: Uses Windows, with -- for the most part -- open source software on top of it: OO.o, Firefox, Gaim, etc.
Note that they are not switching OSs because they want to -- they want to keep hassle to a minimum. Both of them can keep using their existing applications if they stay with Windows, but only user B can do the same with Linux. Thus, in this case, user B is likelier to make the switch to Linux (due to security concerns, most likely) than user A is.
People only care about the applications they use. I submit that the 'nightmare scenario' you describe where applications on Linux are also available on Windows, but not vice versa, is actually -better- than having all applications be exclusive to their respective OSs. In the former case, you have two groups of people -- those that use Microsoft applications, and are thus locked in to Windows, and those that use open source ones, and can move freely between Linux and Windows -- and here I believe Linux can stand on its own merits: it is free, more powerful, and more secure. In the latter case, you only have people who are locked in to their respective platforms, with very little trickle-over in either direction. This is an excellent strategy when you have a majority of the market, and want to protect against losing it. It is not an excellent strategy when you have a small niche of the market, and want to increase it. The way to convert Windows users is in small steps, not in huge leaps. People don't like making huge leaps.
Aaron a part of me totally agrees with you, however I also have a different point of view based on experience with companies/users who migrated to Linux or considering this.
When a company is considering a migration they always look at the learning curve for their users. The less new applications they have to learn the less important the platform will be.
Companies make cost driven decisions. Retraining their users is very costly. The less retraining neccesary the more change to a switch.
Also from my experience home users feel more comfortable switching if the learning curve is not to high.
> it is free,
free as in beer? people don't see the cost of windows, it just "comes" with their computer. this is different for companies, but then they see the cost of Linux in that environment too.
free as in freedom? let's be blunt, you and i may really care about it (i do), but for 99% this draws blank stares.
> more powerful,
for most people Windows and MacOS is already more than they need power-wise.
> and more secure
this would count, except we're fixing these problems by giving them better apps that plug the common holes. FireFox is a great example of this.
> Thus, in this case, user B is likelier to make the
> switch to Linux (due to security concerns, most likely)
i would agree, except that we are FIXING their security concerns. linux firewalls, FireFox browsers... windows is broken and we're building a moat around it.
moreover, the person in situation B is not more likely to move over to Linux for the exact reasons i state in my blog: they have no reason to. people move when their is a motivation to do so, not because "they can" (which you note in your comment, i might add)
the person using Free Software on windows has had their needs met, the person not using Free Software on windows doesn't care. and if the person using Free Software on windows has even a single app that doesn't work on Linux, why would they switch?
now, if they had to give up that one app just to get a kick ass IM client, an amazing browser, a Free office suite, etc, etc... then they have a reason to do so.
> The average person doesn't switch OSs on a whim
...
> and can move freely between Linux and Windows
because people don't switch on a whim, the latter hardly matters. what enables people to move freely is not common applications as much as common file formats.
in a corporate settings it's all about vertical apps and file formats, not web browsers (until they become a vertical app, thank you ActiveX!)
> Companies make cost driven decisions.
yes, they do. however it has the exact opposite effect in most cases than you purport, because:
1. it's cheaper to retrain OOo/FireFox/Win32 than it is OOo/FireFox/Linux. the OOo/FireFox retraining will have to occur no matter what, so it's a zero sum game either way. in other words, it doesn't matter if the Free Software apps are on windows or not, if they switch they switch and the costs are incurred.
2. this means that the only cost differential is Linux vs Windows. and this is where the REAL costs are. while the apps have rather little training costs, as several studies have shown, moving to Linux means different control panels, different file systems, slightly different desktop semantics, etc. so instead of having to ballance the costs of retraining versus the benefits of OOo, FireFox and Linux (which is a compelling sell), they can only ballance the costs of retraining against Linux. this is a much smaller win and much harder to justify.
end result is that they will more likely stay on Windows, and the problem there is that we are easily outcompeted by Microsoft as we have no leverage in that environment and they have complete leverage.
> Also from my experience home users feel more comfortable
> switching if the learning curve is not to high.
home users will be among the last to switch, and so they are at this point not nearly as relevant as the hobbyist, corporate and government user bases.
that said, the learning curve still exists when the apps are on windows. that doesn't change at all, except we've given them some of the goods before they make the leap.
I agree with your view to some extent, and the myriad of OSS applications available for KDE was one of the reasons why I installed Linux in the first place.
However, I think you are ignoring some of the benefits that cross-platform support brings. Consider FireFox, it made the move to Linux easier because it provided a familiar user interface and functionality. With OO.org as well, if people try the software on Windows, it makes it easier to move to Linux because they will be familiar with it.
Consider the situation a few years ago, where in order to move to Linux from Windows, the user had to learn a whole new set of applications, this is not desireable when Linux market share on the desktop is still very small.
Microsoft's principle weapons for defeating rivals in the past have been economic - making a cheap competitor for existing software. This is not possible with OSS, so they have moved to anti-competative measures instead - by encouraging Windows users not to rely on MS' own software (via spreading the use of FireFox etc.) - we can prevent them from gaining an unassailable market position.
I disagree.
Yes, FireFox does allow people to stay on Windows, but it also allows them to switch seamlessly to Linux. Portable applications really just level the playing field for OSes and allow them to compete on their own merits. The problem (that nobody wants to admit) is that Linux is not as good an underlying desktop OS as Windows is.
Hardware compatibility and resiliency in the face of hardware changes is still much better in the Windows world. Xorg is still not as easy to configure as Windows graphics drivers, and it will not even be at feature parity until the composite extension stabilizes and NX gets integrated (RDP is very good). Linux is better than Windows in a few specific ways, but Windows is still better in many ways that matter more to the average user.
If Linux was better than Windows, portable applications could only help it dominate over Windows. If Linux is not better than Windows, why hamstring KDE by tying it to an inferior operating system? Let the users decide. Give them the choice.
In fact, Linux doesn't even have to be as good as Windows, since it has a built-in cost advantage that Windows can never have. I believe that cost advantage far outweighs the miniscule advantage Microsoft products get from Windows integration. Really, name one major microsoft product feature that is not implementable by an open-source program, given approximately the same number of man-hours. And before you say "loading word documents" think about all the jillions of man-hours that have gone into Word. The myth of secret hidden super-APIs that give microsoft programs an advantage is just that; a myth. Microsoft programs get the way they are from good old-fashioned hard work, and if open-source coders can't keep up that only indicates that open-source isn't keeping up with the closed-source model.
There are plenty of features that Linux could implement at the OS level that would differentiate it from Windows and make people want to switch. Instant-on, and fast filesystem searching, for two. In fact I don't understand why Linux developers don't rush to implement these things that Windows is so bad at. If you want to replace Windows, you have to provide compelling reasons.
I suspect the difference between you and me is that I am looking at this from a practical point of view, and you are looking at it from a free software dogmatic point of view. I say, if Windows is better, let them use Windows. You say, free software is an end unto itself, so we should encourage them to use free software. There are merits to both views, but end users don't care about source code freedom. And it has occurred to me that if freedom doesn't get them better software, maybe they're right. So just let the best software win. If the free software model is truly better, it doesn't need application lock-in to succeed.
> I suspect the difference between you and me is that I am looking
> at this from a practical point of view, and you are looking at it
> from a free software dogmatic point of view. I say, if Windows is
> better, let them use Windows. You say, free software is an end
> unto itself, so we should encourage them to use free software.
> There are merits to both views, but end users don't care about
> source code freedom. And it has occurred to me that if freedom
> doesn't get them better software, maybe they're right. So just let
> the best software win. If the free software model is truly better, it
> doesn't need application lock-in to succeed.
It is an oft-stated fallacy that Free Software only matters to programmers. The argument says: "Why would I, a non-programmer, care if I have access to the source code? I just want something that works!"
That's a naive, short-termist and self-centred reasoning. Free Software obviously benefits non-programmers for many reasons, including:
- The freedom to request features directly, and pay for them to be implemented if you have the money
- The freedom to share the software with friends, family and colleagues legally
- The freedom to use the software as you want, without restrictions being imposed on you
- Freedom from spyware and malware in software large enough for unrelated programmers to have checked the source code
- The freedom, generally, to switch between applications, since (one would hope that) Free Software applications can support each other's formats, or even use the same formats, more easily
And of course in using Free Software you support the freedom for programmers to work on Free Software rather than proprietary software.
There are also good reasons not to use Microsoft, not least of which that you are supporting an unethical company that indulges in numerous nasty business practises. You are supporting an abusive, tax-dodging monopolist. If KDE encourages people to use Windows by providing its entire, or even just major, applications for Windows, then it is making it easier for people to legitimise using Windows on that very short-termist, self-centered reason you give.
Let's put all our energy into solving these desktop issues. Let's really work hard through freedesktop.org on technologies like HAL, DBUS, Xorg's new extensions, Gstreamer/NMM/MAS and others. Let's talk about how great and functional a Free Software is, and can be. And let's, for goodness' sakes, talk about freedom! It's not that hard, unless you're stuck in a dogmatically pragmatic mindset.
As a recent Windows convert... yes, it's true to a certain extent. I wouldnt have switched from KDE to Windows on my primary desktop if there would not be Firefox, Thunderbird, Gimp, PuTTY, XChat, OpenOffice, RealVNC, vlc... I still use many OpenSource apps, but (with the exception of Firefox and maybe PuTTY) only because they are cheaper than the commercial alternatives. Frankly said, there are significantly better commercial alternatives to most open source applications. Open Source software does not improve Windows, but it makes cheaper.
Concerning KDE: as a user, I see no value in having KDE apps on Windows and I don't think that you should worry about a KDE Windows port. No one will use it anyway. KDE apps are ok in an integrated desktop, but without that integration on a foreign desktop and with the huge competition of better (commercial and free) applications, they just dont have any chance. Here on Windows I wouldnt even use them if they were free. I don't miss a single KDE app.
Hi,
Think that KDE on windows is a waste of time.
However OOo and Firefox are Good(TM). They enable a migration path for non-geeks. My mom for example. She uses _only_ those two programs on her windows. And now that she is familiar with them I have a chance of persuading her to switch to linux - "it's the same...just safer - no viruses..."
I wouldn't have had the chance if she had the sense that she would get something totally new and frightening.
For geeks, I partly agree with you. Here technical arguments count - and I might have delayed trying linux if Eclipse CDT and Eclipse Stellation (two geeky-cool products) had been available on windows.
But all in all - I think OOo and Ff decreases resistance to migration - and the price and insecurity of windows will push people over.
The question is, what does Open Source software long for? You can look at this issue either from the Linux point of view or from the application point of view.
From the Linux point of view, Open Source wants to make the world a better place by getting users to switch from proprietary products like Windows. The developers want to fight monopolies and similar evils by developing better kernels, desktops and applications.
From the application point of view, Open Source wants to make the world a better place by giving good software to as much users as possible. The developers want to enhance the user experience and productivity by developing better or complementary software, also if it's coexisting with proprietary products.
I see your point, Aaron, and I can understand your worries about long time enhancements in Windows which could make Open Source software obsolete. But if features, security and ease of use don't make users switch to Linux or KDE, and if the freedom of Open Source software is the only argument in favour of that, then so be it.
Many users and admins will see the constraints of proprietary software and choose Linux because it is free. Now if they rather choose Windows, you want to lock them out just because they don't care (enough) for freedom of software? That's like a punishment for bad behaviour.
I think Open Source should be useful for all people, and not only for those who run free operating systems. I don't like that Microsoft tries to tie the users to Windows, and I wouldn't appreciate if KDE tried to do the same.
Even if it's bad for Linux in the long run. Restricting Open Source for political reasons is not the Right Thing (TM). You know that.
originally posted by myself:
> Now if they rather choose Windows, you want to lock them out just because they don't care (enough) for freedom of software? (...)
> Restricting Open Source for political reasons is not the Right Thing (TM).
originally posted by aseigo:
> some, however, got lost in inventing political motivations i don't have (lock in? Free Software zealory? lol) (...)
Well, I might have never been brilliant in putting together arguments. With political reasons, I meant some kind of dogma that Open Source has to take over. If Microsoft's software is gonna be that advanced, does it have to? Of course, if it's not going to take over, all the effort would have been useless, and that viability argument is a good one. Anyways, you got my point.
Yeah, and thanks for being so charming in everything you write. I just love the way you deal with discussions.
> With political reasons, I meant some kind of dogma that
> Open Source has to take over. If Microsoft's software is
> gonna be that advanced, does it have to? Of course, if
Open Source doesn't have to take over. i would, however, like to see it continue to exist and improve. i would like to be able to choose the best software out there and have that choice also be Open Source. wouldn't that be cool? wouldn't it be cool if the rest of the world who can't afford Microsoft or the politics it decides to pull also could make this same choice? i hope you agree it would be.
if even only 15% of the world's desktop software was Open Source, that's fine as long as it's viable (e.g. it will stick around) and is of high quality. we don't need world domination, we just need viability.
and that's what worries me about the current "strategy" that some are seeking to employ. it threatens that viability. we need more than 5% penetration to be long-term sustainable, which btw includes fostering innovation on our platforms. we need more like 15-20%, at a minimum.
those numbers aren't going to happen with the "port it to Windows and advocate that" concept. you'd think with all the ex-BeOS, ex-Amiga, ex-OS/2, ex-BeOS and ex-proprietary UNIX users in the Open Source community that we'd understand why that is.
> Yeah, and thanks for being so charming in everything you
> write. I just love the way you deal with discussions.
aw, i love you too, honey.
Maybe you never heard of ReactOS dude. Its a GPL Windows clone. Sure the OpenCD may kill your Linux desktop but if we can make a free Windows system then people will use it. Linux replaced Unix so why cant ReactOS replace Windows?
-sedwards
I have an ultimatively pessimistic opinion about getting away from Microsoft - there is no way. I think that if Microsoft would close shop today, there would be at least a decade where even _hardware_ manufacturers would push innovations on the backbuner just so people can continue running WindowsXP. And they would do that in numbers for at least half a decade, new Virii and Exploits not withstanding.
Windows is like the Sofa stuck in Richard McDuff's staircase. I can't explain how it ever happened. In conclusion, no political decision will ever matter in the quest of removing Windows from this planet's computers.
The only thing that we (the KDE developers and KDE porters (on free operating systems)) can do is to make very sure that the Windows porting efforts have NO effect on the work for the REAL target - the free platforms. This we can do. Have a zero tolerance policy and be not afraid to piss off the Win porters if necessary. If they need a feature or a feature to be adapted, they do the work and if their work isn't good enough, they get to do it over.
OpenOffice.org and Firefox have missed to do this - Windows more or less _is_ their primary target, and their style of development (and the bloated software that comes out of it) matches that. That's where they are at a disadvantage. Think of what they could have achieved if their development was focused onto the free (and easy!) platforms like KDE's is.
To sum it up: Yes, let's not pretend our software has any leverage in Windows - let's make sure the Windows ports don't enable Microsoft to gain a leverage on _us_. Axing the porting efforts is not necessary to do that, we just need to not let them compromise our focus of development.
> their own merits. The problem (that nobody wants
> to admit) is that Linux is not as good an
> underlying desktop OS as Windows is.
> stabilizes and NX gets integrated (RDP is very
> good).
"Good" is a subjective qualifier, so it's hard to support. Win has an OS and as a platform have a lot of annoyances, that could made it "worst" for people that care about those annoyances.
I could argue NX/RDP are not core desktop technologies, but I won't, and say instead there is no written rules about what makes an OS good for the desktop.
> but Windows is still better in many ways that
> matter more to the average user.
Maybe, but one size doesn't fit all, so it's hard to believe Windows is better to such great extent. And even some advantages could not affect the average user, as those have not "commodity demand", people don't care.
So, the real average user that doesn't care is out of the question in the "Linux is not good DT OS", as long as they are able to get Linux or anything else, and use the apps (We talk about very ignorant people computer-wise).
> Windows. If Linux is not better than Windows, why
> hamstring KDE by tying it to an inferior operating
> system? Let the users decide. Give them the choice.
As Aaron said, you do that, MS will answer in ways that will lock you out. You don't eat that, do you?
> approximately the same number of man-hours. And
> before you say "loading word documents" think about
> all the jillions of man-hours that have gone into
> Word. The myth of secret hidden super-APIs that
> give microsoft programs an advantage is just that;
> a myth. Microsoft programs get the way they are
> from good old-fashioned hard work, and if
Ask Wine developers about that. Do you really think those guys just take so long building it because they are stupids unable to reproduce the API as described in the docs? No!!! They spent _lots_ of hours with debugging technics trying to figure out why app X doesn't behave correctly after calling API function y() and then crashed.
Of course, you can't develop a large app in ten days, however this is still a unfair competition. And that is Aaron worry about.
> Instant-on, and fast filesystem searching, for two.
> In fact I don't understand why Linux developers
> don't rush to implement these things that Windows
> is so bad at.
That is because (still) there is not so big interest on Linux in the desktop. Hey, RH recommended Windows not so long time ago!
And those who are not paid for doing it have not interest in those features, and have not interest in rushes. If you followed 2.3.x development, you should know rushes are not in Torvald's and Co. vocabulary.
>I suspect the difference between you and me is that
> I am looking at this from a practical point of
> view, and you are looking at it from a free soft
> ware dogmatic point of view. I say, if Windows is
> better, let them use Windows. You say, free
Maybe. My own concern (not necessarily Aaron's) is freedom of choice, both as a dogmatic and a practical matter. But you can't have that as long as there isn't a real free market, but a monopolistic one.
If we are free, let's everybody use whatever they want. But it's not the case.
"Survey people using FireFox on Windows. How many of them are saying, "I'm so impressed I'm going to switch to a Free Software desktop." Virtually zero. Too many of us in the Open Source community naively expect people to draw conclusions that today's technology consumers are not motivated, let alone empowered, to make."
I am one of those people who tried out Firefox on Windows and decided because of it (or I guess as one of the primary factors) to switch over to linux. I am still using Windows but I am beginning to phase over to complete linux usage.
Unfortunately, you have no choice. The license (which the OSS community created) allows for it. Thank Stallman, our great saviour. When it comes down to it, all the "bad things" you mention are, well....too bad!
Not that I agree or disagree with you but:
"why would anyone in their right mind switch to Linux/BSD (and incur the training and data migration costs) when they already have all the software they need and want right in front of them? They have no reason to. None. Ergo, they won't."Assuming you ignore usability, costs, security.
Additionally having uniform applications between OSs can make the move easier (takes training and possibly data migration costs out of your equation).
Think of it this way, if all OSs had the same applications bar none, then what are the reasons to move? I think it would come down to costs, security and other related OS factors.
i believe one of the reason that linux hasn't made as much headway into the desktop market as the server market is because everyone and their grandmother is familiar with the windows ui. period. people may complain about other aspects of the window's os, but when it comes down to it they don't stick with the product because it's techincally superior, but because it's familiar.
i for one LOVE the fact that i can run open source on my windows desktop. i run xoblite on my home windows box, and it make the experience a lot more enjoyable. i run a windows desktop at home because of simplicity, my girlfriend would just look at me funny if i told her to hit ctrl+alt+f2 just so she could log into x.
so i run a linux server in the background, and leave windows on my desktop. there really isn't that many non-open source applications running on my windows machine either.
by exposing my girlfriend to open source applications, it's slowly getting her to the point where she can eventually make the switch [to linux] if she wants. she hears about all the virtues i talk about when i'm running linux, but show her a cli and that conversation is immediately stopped.
please don't take my open source programs away. open source has always been about choice, and now that stuff is being ported to something other than a un*x based os.. i just see that as being a positive.
i've been using linux since 96, and i've been a professional linux admin since 98.
Surely once Windows users have gotten used to using their Free/OSS applications, they'll consider moving over to Linux next time they decide it's about time they upgrade their Operating System? It makes the jump much easier if all they have to do is change the OS, rather than the OS *and* the applications.
As a GNOME user I support your opinions. Those crazy people should help porting Gnumeric and Evolution to Windows instead.
Agreed. I too vehemently oppose all forms of competition. It is well known that competition increases the quality of a product. Who cares that Linux has forced Solaris to provide great new features? Who cares that Mozilla has forced Microsoft to reconsiders its IE strategy? Who cares that in the end, only the user wins? Open source people sure don't care about the end users experience. They simply care about one thing, propagating open source. Open source is clearly about the developer, not the user, as so clearly demonstrated by this blog post.
Either the Linux/BSD can compete with Windows/Mac OS or it can't. Don't rely on apps strongarming people to use the OS. The goal should be to port more to Linux/BSD not restrict more to ONLY Linux/BSD.
Either the product stands alone, or it doesn't, don't make me "buy a bundle of OSS software to use just one piece. Might as well go buy MS Office and WIndows if I have to do that for Linux as well.
If one looks at the prohibitors to moving to Linux on the Desktop you'll find that the reason people keep using windows is that the applications that they use on a daily basis are only available on windows or that they are incompatible with users in the office that do use windows. If we can level the playing field by making FOSS apps the norm regardless of Desktop we then level the playing field for the underlying OS's to compete on Technical merit instead of software availability.
In other words once the platform is irrelevant you'll find that adoption of Linux Desktop increases not decreases.
I work for a large software company that is making the transistion to Linux Desktop company wide and it's not usability keeping me from making the transistion it's mostly the application transition and to a lesser extent hardware support.
Dustin
I'm a Windows C++ developer.
Windows developers have used MFC, and those that aren't going to .NET are now using WTL. So they write FLOSS software like CD-ex, FileZilla, Gnucleus, and WinMerge: all great programs that only run on Windows.
As someone who knows MFC and WTL I can assure you that they are quite bad. Qt is much better. If Qt were freely available on Windows, then a lot of developers would have used it instead of MFC/WTL, and a lot of these excellent apps would be cross-platform.
There are other frameworks (like wxWindows), but none as high profile and well supported as Qt.
> i'm starting to get OOo and KOffice documents
> in email, but virtually 100% of business traffic
> is MS Word format (except from strange people like
> lawyers who seem to LOVE WordPerfect in this town)
This used to drive me insane, but I've taken to just trusting that WordPerfect (what I use on Windows) and OOo (what I use on Linux) have decent enough Word filters to make it all work out.
About lawyers and WordPerfect: firstly, only WP knows how to do correct tables of authorities, footnotes, and has proper word counts by default; secondly, many courts standardized on WP files for electronic filing of legal briefs.
WP has also used the same file format since version 5.1 (and many lawyers, being technophobes, still use WP 5.1 for DOS). It is basically a binary SGML format, and you can even ask WP to show the tags in a window below the WYSIWYG editor. WP 5.1 really can open a WP 12 document, will warn you about the newfangled tags it figures are from a later version, and will happily work with everything it understands.
On a side note, Corel screwed up their Linux strategy because they didn't fully realize why they were building a OS (Debian based) and a hardware box (the Netwinder) and then porting Corel Suite (WP Office) to it. It's simple: they wanted to be a one-stop-IT-shop for a law firm to get their lawyers off of WP 5.1 on DOS with Novell networking and onto something more modern. As far as I know, they never once made this sales pitch.
I can't disagree more!!! Getting OSS apps ported to Windows will ultimately benefit Linux/BSD. If in the meantime the competition forces Microsoft to produce better products, that's great.
People and corporations are going to move to Linux/BSD if Linux/BSD provide a superior product with familiar applications at a better TCO. Linux/BSD is superior in many ways, but for the AVERAGE USER it's not ready. Mom and Pop aren't going to use Linux/BSD because the UI is crap and it's not easy to use.
I dumped Linux 3 years ago and moved to OS X... and I've never looked back. I have an OSS operating system at the heart of my system with a vastly superior UI to anything GNOME, KDE, etc. offer and I have better applications than anything the OSS community can offer me... yet, I still have the freedom to use Apache, PostgreSQL, and any other OSS app I want if I need it. The only way I'm leaving OS X behind is if free Linux/BSD distributions are as easy to use and provide a better platform for me to be productive.
I used Linux almost exclusively from '97 to late '01. It was fun, but I don't have the time or patience to tweak this and that, and download a ton of dependencies and such when I want to get something to work. With OS X, 95% of my time at the computer is spent being productive.
Stop being so scared about OSS apps being ported to Windows and OS X. If you want to beat the competition, make Linux/BSD better. And in the meantime, take advantage of the ability of Windows/OS X users getting exposed to OSS apps... it'll make it that much easier to move to Linux/BSD when the distributions are ready for prime time.
Well... switching from Windows to Linux... I just wish that ALSA or OSS was easier to configure... being a Software Developer for over 10 years,... configuring sound on my Linux system is an absolute nightmare... I can't imagine how any non-tech user could ever hope to get sound working on his system.
I think that ease of installation (this has been an issue since day one) and configuration of the basic desktop with hardware support remains the biggest obstacle! Until a user can do a ZERO-Configuration install with all hardware being plug-and-play,.. getting a non-technical user base to switch to a Linux desktop won't just be difficult, it will be impossible.
I think that free software ported to non-free OSes will not make free software systems more popular. After all, as you said, why switch to the free software system if you can get everything you want on the non-free system you're (probably) already invested in?
I also depart from the majority of posters on Slashdot and Footnotes about this topic is the issue of software freedom: I think one thing that can make people switch to a free software system is if they learn to value software freedom. That requires engaging in freedom talk and not settling for just the technical advances the open source movement talks about. Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for more on this. This essay not only spells out the difference between two movements, but it also spells out why technical advances are insufficient to address the larger more important issues of how people should treat each other ethically.
The open source movement values technical achievement and speaks primarily to businesses. They don't talk about software freedom because they think that gets in the way of speaking to businesses. There's nothing wrong with technical improvement, but this message doesn't go far enough; I can get the achievements the open source movement talks about without adopting open source software. This movement says nothing of software freedom.
You can only favor what you value. And you can't value anything you don't know about. So, if technical achievement and price are all that you know about, any proprietor can deliver these things and give you no reason to switch to (or stick with) free software. Microsoft Windows and MacOS X offer plenty of technical reasons to favor those systems. But neither offer software freedom for all of their software. Software freedom is the one thing proprietors cannot offer, but a lot of people (particularly in the US, in my experience) are afraid of speaking politically so they shy away from any talk that smacks of sticking up for one's rights. In the end, the one difference that most separates free software from non-free software goes undiscussed and we end up discussing how to win a popularity contest against proprietors with orders of magnitude more advertising power.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I couldn't agree more with this point of view.
Thanks for keeping BSD in the subject as well.
Aaron, I don't know you personally, but I've followed the KDE project and your work on it for the last six years. I've now become something of an open source developer myself as I develop a Qt-based digital photo software package. I do this because I want to give back to the open source community, and I had an itch, so I decided to scratch it. See, I develop Album Shaper not because I want to attract users to Linux, but because I want to empower users (myself being one of them) to do things they could not (easily) do before. For this reason try to provide versions of Album Shaper for all major OS's, open source and closed, and even the pseudo open source alternative (OSX). Is this evil? Is this silly? I think not. It's not my place to tell users to use Linux or FreeBSD over Windows or OSX. That's their own decision to make. It's not my place to tell them to use my software either, but I think it can help people so I provide it on a number of OS's. See, my goal is to empower users, not convert them to a different OS. Remember in the DOS days where an OS was simply a means to run programs, that was it. OS's have become far too religious these days. As far as I can tell you develop KDE, not the Linux kernel. Why do you care if people use KDE apps on Window or Linux or FreeBSD? If you're just worried about getting more people involved maybe the OSS community should work on building better tools for compiling, editing, debugging on Windows, or better yet a full-fledged cross-platform IDE that works on Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, and OSX.
-Will Stokes
developer of Album Shaper
http://albumshaper.sf.net
Application developers shouldn't have to care about developing for a specific OS. Agendas for the promotion or elimination of an operating system should be irrelevant. But for those who have agendas, consider when a user's applications exist on many platforms, switching between OS's becomes trivial and thus possible.
Demanding application developers boycott Windows isn't realistic; it expects the user to care. If they cared about the OS, they would have already switched. The truth of the matter is even without open source software there is lots of software for Windows.
--
KDE is in a different situation, given that if it were to run on Windows it would compete with the OS itself. But perhaps KDE can make it easier for developers to port their Windows applications to other operating systems, or maybe even make it possible for a normal user to install and run Windows applications on a non-Windows OS.
--
For those with an anti-Windows agenda, Windows stands on two legs: MS Office and computer games. Knock out those two legs and Windows as a product line will decline to the point of not being a monopoly.
"...why would anyone in their right mind switch to Linux/BSD...when they already have all the software they need and want right in front of them?"
Great question, so let me toss it back at you. Is the availability of certain applications the only advantage Linux has over Windows? If that's the case, then why do you really care whether people use Windows or not? What difference does it make?
Evangilizing Open Source is a waste of time in most instances. Mom and Pop DON'T CARE! Businesses DON'T CARE! In fact, half of the OSS zealots I listen to at my local LUG act and sound like idiots and if anything, they push people away from OSS.
Now personally, I think OSS is great, but you need to provide a superior product that's easy to use. Too many OSS developers don't develop programs for the masses. Support can be non-existent and many systems are of such poor quality that they don't even qualify as a hack.
If you want OSS to catch on, stop worrying about spreading the word of RMS and start writing and contributing quality, easy to use, applications/desktops/operating systems that are VIABLE replacements for Windows and OS X on the desktop. If you can't do that, you can preach all you want and you'll still continue to waste your time.
Until Linux/BSD is as productive of a platform as OS X, I'll never switch. But I certainly will use and support OSS applications & efforts if those applications make me more productive.
Just a thought,
In my own very humble opinion, the one thing that I love about free software is that it gives people choices. When I write an FOSS app, I write it so people can use it if they _want_. It's kind of a gift to the world. I'm not trying to force people to use it, or limit their choices in any way. I'm just putting it on the table and saying 'here', take it or leave it.
So for me, the more people can use a KDE application I write, the better.
Open source is not good at long term business strategies, and that's what I love about it. We're not here to convert the world to linux, or any sort of UNIX. Well, I'm not, anyway.
Let's give our users choices, rather than trying to lock them in to our own pet platform, and with any luck, everything else will sort itself out.
I'm just here to make cool stuff. And if people use it, well, that's just what makes me warm and fuzzy inside.
Some random thoughts.
- Apparently MAC sales have increased since IPods.
- Firefox helps break the Windows upgrade requirement (forcing Microsoft to compete with themselves)
- The average home user cares mostly about typing the odd letter, surfing and sending emails. Get them usings cross platform apps they're familiar with and they'll be happier to switch out the OS underneath it.
There is a level of irony here. Microsoft does not make the Word document standard open because that makes it easier to migrate away from Windows. Busines practices like that are why a good number of people dislike them. You are suggesting not porting applications to Windows because that makes it easier to stay with Windows. Both are examples of developers closing doors, in order to use an edge in one market to gain an edge in another. In fact, that's the very premise behind the lawsuits against Microsoft (using an edge in the OS market to gain an edge elsewhere, like with the browser or the media player or whatever the next lawsuit is).
I realize open source is far from a monopoly, and so the same laws don't apply, but that doesn't make it ethical. You're still suggesting using an edge in the browser market to gain an edge in the OS market.
Regardless of ethics, from the perspective of a home user, I think it is far better for as many applications to be ported as possible. If open source software can get to the point where they are the leaders (or at least equals) in a majority of desktop markets, thats where they can finally snatch away the operating system. Once open software advocates can say, "every application you use is available on Linux, plus they work and interoperate better on Linux", you'll get converts. Its a lot harder to say, "Open Office is good, trust me, FireFox is better, trust me, Gaim is better, trust me, etc".
People are inherently skeptical. They want to see everything for themselves, and they want to have an easy of a time as possible while doing so. Forcing all of open source to be an all-or-nothing package prevents people from seeing for themselves, or having an easy time with it.
I highly doubt that the average Joe would even know what FireFox is, if not for its availability on Windows. The average Joe doesn't read Slashdot - they read more main stream newspapers. And reporters don't report that their readers should format their hard drive, install Linux, get all these other apps, all because you then get FireFox which isn't susceptable to the latest bug. Their readers would rather turn off their computers for a few days until the Microsoft patch is released. But installing FireFox on Windows - thats a simple, instant-gratification solution.
The parent post has very good points.
Now, which license is FF released under? If it is GPL compatible, would it prevent FF to be ported to win32?
In all honesty, I have never paid for any version of Windows. Why? Because I pisses me off and I spend countless hours fixing my own and my friends/families/strangers windows computers. My never paying for windows is my personal compensation for all that free pc repair. I have heard great things about linux aps and the OS itself. I would gladly switch to linux and have wanted to for about a year now. I haven't because I just don't have the time to get it working. I have tried knoppix and other live cd's and they NEVER would "just work". Every linux distro I've tried always result in a call to some linux savvy guy in my area to be told that I need to edit this txt file in this directory and then type this and that in the console....aaarrgggghhhh. Mind you, the apps that came with whatever distro (gimp, open office, konqueror, etc) they all seem to work fine. But the linus OS/distro whatever its called doesn't. I am no computer expert or a software developer. I tend to perform massive upgrades to my system every 4 months and every time I try out whatever my linux using friends have on their systems at the time. Nothing ever just works. Either I can't get the linux executable of my game to work, or the video card isnt properly detected, or I can't get internet connection. And there seems to be a lot that needs to be done as far as help files go. I have never ever looked at the help file for 'windows'. But I always find myself hoping that the particular feature thats not workng in linux when I try it would have some easy to understand documentation on how to get it working and it never does.
I like gimp, I like open office (I have NO need for any word processing applications EVER), quake and ut and some others are avaliable for linux, I like konqueror, I love firefox, I own a copy of maya 5 for linux(I was told it 'greatly outperformed' the windows version). But actually sittng down and 'using' linux is someting I've never experience because I have been plagued with bad luck when tring to get it up and runnin in the first place.
opensource or free software are not about "linux" or a "free os"
it's about to bring Better Tools and Better practices in software industry
we need free software even on os X and Windows, because there are REAL reasons why sometimes os X or windows is a NEED.
buuuut, thanks to good free software available on any platforms, if one day, the "free os" (linux) is really so much better, we can move without lost knowledage, data and all
for an enterprise it's really important.
Yes I give Firefox and others gimps and others free software for windows in my enterprise, to prepare a move from windows is one day, linux is totally ready for our business and if it really helps to do better works.
(for me, linux would be better to do better work, but "people" are not ready, they are not ready to stop use of Microsoft Office, or many proprietary software. for now, we need to do things Gradually. to keep the "Good'ol" environment and bring some little parts of the free software desktp , with patience and quiet)
you will see, with time, "linux" will win if it is the really better software, even if windows has many opensource software. it will win because it is the best to run all software with ease and security.
Something to this effect may have been said already, but it seems to me that you (author) are getting upset about a company improving their software. Linux and OSS will never truly make a big splash if developers don't give their apps exposure. And keeping apps off of certain platforms for fear that these platform companies may improve their own apps is short-sighted and fundamentally wrong. I think the two keys for Linux and OSS success are the following:
1) interoperability
and
2) systems with Linux and OSS PREINSTALLED (can't stress this enough)
Just ask around to you average user, "When was the last time you installed an OS on your computer?"
forgot to add....
...I've tried always result in a call to some linux savvy guy in my area to be told that I need to edit this txt file in this directory and then type this and that in the console....aaarrgggghhhh......
I do enough(too much) of that when I'm using windows. This linux thing is supposed to be 'better' I've always been told. Then why after 2 hours am I still doing configurations and other crap thats similar to what I'm tired of having to do with windows?
I can take win98, win2k, or winxp, slap it on barebones system and be online in about 30 minutes. Yes, its true that linux users i've met can do the same with linux, but I don't sit at home and frig with linux 7 days a week then go to work and administrate corporate networks and use linux at work 7 days a week. I'm an average joe with slightly above average computer skills. But all the distros I've tried are still frustratingly beyond me.
I've used linux apps and for the most part they work. Some are full featured, some are simple/minimalistic but my problem is that the OS they run on is a pain in my backside to get going with.
I am an independant IT consultant and specialize in offices with 5-30 workstations. The smaller of these often have trouble with the startup costs of all of the OS's, and Microsoft licenses they are forced to bear. In EVERY case I have offered alternatives to the point of starting a freeofficeapps.com to help educate my clients on all of the "replacement" programs that exist.
The reluctance to anything but "known standards" is simply overwhelming. I have spent countless hours demoing OOo, GAIM, Gimp, etc. and am slowly making inroads. You simply cannot expect people to switch OS's that easily. My own attempts to migrate users is based on the strategy of getting them used to using alternative applications. It is a slow, slow process but once you get them hooked on one thing, the next is easier (Say moving from Trillian to GAIM for example).
However, in virtually all cases, some aspect of their business requires that they are on a Windows platform. Be it their accounting system, shipping system, development tools, custom software, or other applications where no alternative on any other platform exists. In these cases, you simply cannot make a case for switching "everyone else".
Open source applications on Windows does make sense. It can be cost effective (so long as the support is minimul), stable, and productive. However, the business desktop is simply not going to switch any time in the forseeable future, the best anyone can hope for is that users find alternative software packages that save them time, effort, and cost and aren't tied and gagged to Microsoft.
Sorry but ist the other way round!
You can not move WINDOWS addicted to go the full way to a LINUX Desktop until you teached them that there are other Wordprozessors then MS WORD!
Its hard enough to bring lets say OpenOffice to a firm let alone migrate them to Open Source in one Step.
I once wanted to introduce a OPEN Source Software in my firm (about 1000 employes in germany) to be used just in the computer department on 3 PCs.
I told my manager that i found a software which would save us about 10-30000$ a Year. He was delighted and asked me about the price. I told him ist for free and expected a happy manager.
But he got into a state of shock, because some senior manager hat a bad feeling about OS!
Well, our solution simple and need we did not ask and used them (simple for the head of the pc support department) on the 3 PCs.
Nowadays LINUX is our main UNIX for all new backend systems.
See the point? You must get them (the manager) like a drug dealer, give them all small dosis and then slowly increase the dose!
First take away Word from the secretary, then Excel and so on. NEVER underestimate the power of the CEOs secretary, she ist more dangerous to OS then any CIO! If she doesn't like to give away here MS WORD you loose.
In the end you can take her Windows away.
I would strongly suggest you look at this:
Open Source Myopia, RevisitedI took notice of your post through that, and having read the guy's opinions first, you do come out across like a bit of a zaelot. The guy's pretty balanced for a Mac dude, and dismantled your arguments piece by piece in a very straightforward awy.
You've got it backwards. If you have the same (free) applications available for Linux and Windows then you have a level playing field, which is the last thing Microsoft wants. They *want* seperate "walled gardens", with entirely different software stacks; they *want* it to be as hard as possible for people to migrate, because when you've got a level playing field proprietory always loses to commodity in the end, and that is true in any market.
I don't agree with you. I think open source benefits from being on Windows, and suffers when it is not. Somoene here pointed out OO.org, do you think it woudl have been able to rival MSOffice if it didn't get used on windows?
No one is going to change from an OS they already payed for to a free OS. Especially one that is still difficult, if not impossible, for a novice user to pick up and use. Let developers easily port their applications over, and when people who exclusievly use windows start downloading these free open source applications, they will being to gait some respect for open source. And that will only make, linux AND KDE, look good in the long run.
I would like to say something that does not invlove open source versus proprietary, but rather just open source. First, just to get proprietary out of the way, there is nothing wrong with closed source. If some entity wants to keep their source closed off from the masses, that is their own choice [I am not endorsing sketchy business practice, but I do believe that people should have control over their property]. As for open source, quality is not necessarily going to improve by expanding its user base. And who cares about the numbers. Linux, for one, was not developed to overthrow MS. Its current role is to offer an alternative for those who want it. I, for one, want it. I also want to be able to use apps I am comfortable with under Windows (when I am at work and when I am at my parent house). All I request is for this uber-alarmism to stop. If you make open source applications, you should adhere to the fundamental philosophy of open source: OPTIONS, not revolution.
There's already a million people chiming in both here in your blog and on /. as well, but I can't help but share my opinion no matter how discounted or redundant it may be.
You are using the corporate mentallity of, "How can we force people to use our product?" That's one of the bigger things wrong with corporations, it doesn't matter how or why, but get as many people as possible to use your product.
Firefox is the example you should follow. Look at what users want, what they don't want, and what they have now. Then make something that is better than currently available.
That is how you win over users.
Many people in the Open Source community have these same thoughts that open source must not do anything to make life easier for anyone who would run commercial software such as Windows. This is completely wrong though, software development should always be driven by what provides the best experience for the end user. Open Source software will win because it is better and cheaper, not because it makes life hard for people who use open source software in addition to closed source software.
I run two desktops side by side, Mandrake and WinXP. I run a MythTV Fedora server as well. I pick the systems for their ability to do a good job and their cost. When I'm using Mandrake on my desktop, I'm happy that I can use a browser that I'm familiar with: FireFox. I'm also happy with the many features of Mandrake that are not my windows box, such as SSH, built in FTP and Apache, the great unix command line app suite, enhanced customization features of KDE, etc.
Commercial software makers are often crippled by their business needs, such as Microsoft keeping PDF support out of Office to hurt Adobe or even Opera integrating ads into their browser. Microsoft's active desktop feature or IE standards non-compliance or the aborted IE Channels or the aborted Smart tag ads are all examples of user experience being moved out of first priority. Open source should not make the same mistake of compromising user experience for other goals.
>I think we can all agree that FireFox gives Windows >users a way out from the security nightmare and feature >desert that is Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
True. However, Opera does that too, and was already available for Windows users. So, I don't see any damage done porting Firefox, as it helps improving compatibility with more sites, while getting the users familiar with it, which may be useful for a later migration.
No free apps are ported to windows:
1.- windows users keep using propietary software.
2.- they never care about switching to linux because the apps are alien to them, and switching to a completely different OS is too much of an effort.
3.- they never get that free software is important and a real choice.
4.- the propietary software industry keeps selling a lot, even at abusive prices, with no competence in their Windows lock-in.
I'll take the risk of MS making Windows reject free software (like the netscape navigator issue) any day, thank you. Unlike Netscape (or other propietary software maker), we have nothing too important to lose.
I would just say this:
Nobody would even use firefox is it was not for windows.
I would say you NEED open source apps for windows in the short term, basicly wallpaper over windows with free open source apps and reduce its value.
Then start improving
I'll take open source wherever I can get it, on a closed source platform or an opensource platform.
Putting apps on both makes the likelyhood of Linux entering the corperate desktop easier because the platform becomes the secondary consideration rather than the primary platform.
What is hurting Linux in the corperate market (all markets) is hardware transparency for peripherials - we've beaten the networing issus, we are making progress on applications (dispite your paranoia) but we have to get through the printer scanner webcam plotter etc etc etc issues.
Well there is just one question I have about free desktop applications. Are these free software made by programmers working for fulfilling their passion? In that case, I assume the developers are not paid for it.
Now this free software will compete with its paid. So that would mean that the developers in that firm need to put in more hours, work on a reduced pay and live a horrible life.
I am confused now. I understand the annoyance created by the monopoly of MS, but I still don’t think free software is going to make the developers’ life better. It might make the consumers’ budget lesser for the short run but then eventually how many developers are willing to work solely for passion and no pay. Are we developers not entitled to have a life similar to any other profession where nothing is for free?
I haven’t got a single piece of hardware used in my system for free. In that case why do people expect to get free software?
I have nothing against open source, but then free software doesn’t make sense to me.
Windows already has a desktop hegemony, however. For most people, the choice is not between using Firefox on Linux or IE on Windows, the choice is IE on Windows or Firefox on Windows. If you eliminate Firefox on Windows, you've simply changed the choices to: Firefox on Linux for those for whom that is a valid choice, or Just IE On Windows for the rest, and by 'the rest', I mean almost everyone.
Firefox is not yet a killer app. It's a great browser, and I applaud those working on it, but it will not compel an OS switch. What will allow an OS switch is having most or all applications a person uses available with equal or superior ease of use on the OSS desktop. They don't have to all be superior performers, although of course applications crippled by Windows might well be.
Note that Microsoft has *not* always won. Windows Media Player is by no means a dominant media player or format. (Quicktime and Real are both also viable, and perhaps both in a superior position). Intuit has won the war against MS Money. Plus, in order to win as you described, they'd almost certainly be violating their anti-trust agreement and could be subject to yet another lawsuit. If you don't put Firefox on windows, they simply win by default.
At such time as Firefox is a 'killer app' and a significant portion of people can't live without it, this may not be this way. But as long as Firefox is just a replacement for IE, as superior as it may be, it's a luxury, not a necessity, and the luxury will not be enough to compel a conversion.
I'm 70% of the way through a migration from Windows to Linux. Step one in this migration was to adopt cross-platform open source applications on Windows. When I and my wife were comfortable with the applications that would be available on Linux, that is when we began to wipe Windows.
If Firefox, Thunderbird, and Open Office were not available for Windows I might very well still be using it.
You say that users choose their OS that will run the applications they want to use. Of course they do. But how will an application make it onto that list if it isn't available on Windows? Generally a person has to use an application for a while before it becomes "gotta have..."
One word OS/2 ...
Quite frankly, I think it's a mistake to complain about the fact that porting free and open source software to Windows lowers the incentive for people to switch to other operating systems like Linux or the BSD variants. My own response to that is: who the hell cares? If people don't want to switch, it's no skin off my nose--I'll continue using Linux regardless, and be happy with MY choice.
The biggest mistake anyone can make about FOSS is thinking that it truly matters how many people use it. FOSS doesn't get developed because people are out to make a buck, and it doesn't get developed because there are millions of people clamouring from it. It gets developed because people have an itch to scratch. The survival of FOSS is therefore independent of the factors that drive the development of commerical, closed software.
If a FOSS project starts to flounder because the developers are not happy about how many people are using it, or what OS it runs on, or how much money they can make off service and support--well, I say they ought to hand their project over to those that don't care about such things, and go back to writing commerical software instead.
Personally, I think it's far more important to give Windows users more secure and stable alternatives to Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, than to try and coax them over to Linux or BSD. If it encourages Microsoft to write better software in order to compete, then what's there to complain about? It's not the responsibility of the FOSS community to save people from their own bad decisions. If having their PC's slammed by viruses and malware every week isn't enough to convince people to switch to Linux/BSD, or to at least stop using Microsoft's lousy browser and email client, then they deserve all the heartache they inflict upon themselves. It's a social problem, not a technical one.
You're right that we can't keep porting everything to Windows and expect people to leave Windows, but as time goes on, we will have to do less of this, as people start migrating to Linux. For now, we can't refuse to port to Windows and expect people to leave Windows. There are a few reasons for this.
First, all we're porting to Windows are alternatives. Without porting them, they'll use what they have. We're only offering a few reasons to use Free Software on Windows, and functionality isn't one of the biggies. We're offering all of the things that software freedom have to offer: improved security, better price, less bugs, etc.
Second, Linux is not ready for the desktop. Some say it is, some say it isn't. I say it isn't. I've yet to find a distribution that I can hand to a newbie friend and expect them to use it without hassle. Firefox is the first thing from the Free Software community that I could do this with. Linux and BSD are making progress, but in the meantime, we can take steps to lead them there: moving them to Free Software apps. When Linux and BSD are ready, then it's just a hop, skip and a jump.
Third, one thorn in Linux's side used to be that Windows users were unfamiliar with it. This is changing rapidly. One component of this is applications. People would not only have to learn the operating system and desktop environment, but a whole new suite of applications. This is too daunting for many. By replacing their applications on Windows, we're allowing them to take baby steps. This is necessary.
Fourth, Linux and BSD doesn't have a larger set of applications to offer. It never did. That's not its attractive quality. Its stability, security, cost, and ability to control are its attractive qualities. Microsoft has to compete on this level if it wants to keep its customers.
Besides, Free Software doesn't operate strategically. It operates on people with needs. As long as people see a need for Free Software on Windows, they will be ported. There's nothing you can do about that. I'd say there's nothing we should TRY to do about it. I don't want to beat Microsoft by competing our lock-ins against theirs. I want to beat them by providing better software choices. That means better applications AND better operating systems. If people choose to stick with Windows, then I want to offer better applications. If they choose to do away with Windows, then I want to offer better operating systems. People want options. Free Software gives them that. That's its selling point.
I don't agree, for a few different reasons.
a) Assuming the same applications are available on both platforms, it then *isn't* about the applications. It's about which is the more robust system from the ground up. Even for more clueless users, that means, "If I use Windows, the system won't stay the way I like it day in and day out, because I'll need to reboot it all the time, there is a much greater risk of worms/virii, and I have to put up with the blue screen of death, which in Linux doesn't happen. A more robust operating system at the core level can end up in the long run being far more user friendly...because if Grandma is writing an email to some friends at the nursing home at 10 pm one night, (and chances are extremely good that that'll be the ONLY thing she knows how to do on a computer) then for her, having the blue screen of death suddenly hit is the same as a power failure. She doesn't know the first thing about how to salvage her system from that. With Linux however, she doesn't have to worry about experiencing that. The fact that you feel Linux's strength lies in applications alone tells me that you don't have sufficient faith in the operating system...which is something that is normally due to ignorance of its core operation. You might consider this ad hominem...but it is ad hominem based on a rational assumption.
b) Trying to insist users only use KDE on Linux/FreeBSD is turning a deaf ear to what users want, and we know how well that strategy has worked for Microsoft so far. If people want KDE on Windows, but they can't get KDE on Windows, they'll go back to using native Windows, and KDE will either end up only being used by Linux users, or it will become irrelevant. The other thing is that this attitude is IMHO completely anathema (and rather offensive, actually) to what Linux/OSS are about. Linux distinguishes itself from Windows by emphasising freedom of choice, which includes the freedom to choose *not* to use it, as you'll know if you've used GRUB or Lilo...both of those applications allow the ability to boot into Linux, Windows, or any other operating system a user might have. Open source also means that the user has the ability to do what they want with a given piece of software...whether that means using it on Linux or porting it to Windows. So if you as a member of the KDE dev team don't like the fact that someone is trying to port KDE to another system, I'd suggest you either get over it or lobby the rest of the dev team for the re-lisencing of KDE...because under the GPL you can't prevent anyone from doing so, and it would be a violation of the license for you to try.
c) I dual boot Linux From Scratch 5 and Windows XP...and use both for different purposes. Personally, I'm greatly looking forward to seeing Konqueror running under Windows. Why? So that I can run the Sims 2, Unreal Tournament, RealDRAW, and 3D Studio MAX natively, using Direct3D, while still having the degree of customisability/control over file management that a combination of Konqueror and bash (via cygwin) can give me. I use Linux when I feel like doing programming, peer to peer file sharing with MLDonkey, or completely programmable automated downloading/installation of a particular application/group of applications.
I think what I'm really trying to say here, in the final analysis (and this is something that I've realised over the course of writing this reply) is that I think you're being a control freak, and personally I really don't like control freaks...Not many other people do either. If people want to port KDE to Windows, as long as KDE is open source, they have a right to. People also have the right to use their computers in whatever manner they see fit. If you have a problem with that, tough.
Open source desktop apps ported to Windows is good for Linux if it provides real competition for Windows apps AND encourages Open Source servers. In other words, if a business decides Evolution is as good as Outlook, then IT can use a Linux mail server instead of Exchange. I know KDe is moving in this direction. The battle is not for the desktop people, it's for the server market. Integration between server and desktop apps is the key.
What about the other side of the coin? The lack of *commercial* desktop application development for BSD/Linux. I love FreeBSD and I'm comfortable using the free DEs (mostly KDE and XFCE) but there is no way in hell I'm switching from OS X until *BSD (or Linux) can run Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, Reason etc. There are a few exceptions that run the other way (Komodo, my favourite text editor, and incidentally non-Free software, is only available for Linux, Solaris and Windows) but they are nowhere near enough to tip the scales for me; and since OS X can run X, most FL/OSS GUI apps are easily portable.
I'm quite aware that Darwin has some BSD heritage, although quite what the relationship is I'm not so sure. From an admin point of view, it looks pretty similar (beyond the obvious filesystem tweaks and a few missing utilities I can get fink/darwinports anyway), but I'm not terribly savvy on the details.
However, if a relative newcomer OS like OS X (technology-wise; I'm not a desktop app developer but I understand that Cocoa is a totally different game of soldiers from 'classic' Mac development) can get big commercial apps ported across, then why can't Linux/BSD? I'm not really knowledgeable enough to answer this question, it's not intended to be rhetorical. Maybe it's the lack of standardisation? Or just the size of the userbase?
Okay, at this point, as long as there is a ssh terminal between me and linux, I'm a happy man. Linux on the desktop is at this point a pipe dream. I had to admin 40 of the damnable things.
Biggest end user request was for a windows box. The reason, you see, Windows is more stable, easier to use & better looking than linux. The company I worked for had the brilliant idea of moving the entire sales team to linux. Yeah, now they have a whole group of individuals who love Windows, can't get enough of it.
Second most requested thing was MS Office, because OpenOffice sucks hard. It may be fine if you only create the occasional document, but not when you rely on it daily.
I think the Desktop linux crowd needs to talk to normal users, and do what a real company does, market research. Find out what features your potential users want, what works and what doesn't. The sort feature in the spreadsheet portion of OpenOffice is broken, although so much better than Gnumeric's. If you want to see god awful UI design start there. Compare & contrast it with Excel, you'll see what I mean.
Secondly, I think you also may want to try and get some UI designers on board with your projects. Listening to all the eye candy whingers, only puts you at a disservice, the only time my OS X box gets noticed is when I minimize a window and it sucks into the dock. I've had numerous technical discussions, with users, they don't care, but that whoosh is fun, it's neat, and something that gets attention.
Another thing your going to need to look into is drivers, my roommate had to recompile his kernel to get wireless working, no user in their right mind would ever stand for that. He was a believer, this amongst other things, put him right off, he's selling his X86 laptop and buying a mac (he still hates Windows).
Finally, you should really take a moment, take off your freedom goggles, and look at your competition's product. Dissect it, try and discern the design decisions behind it, try and figure out why something is built the way it is. If you get a chance, look at OS X, it's so well designed. Oh and just to start you off, read this It's a transcript of a talk given by Wilfredo Sanchez who was the lead BSD architect for OS X. What I want you to notice is the number of times he says our users expect this behavior, so this is what we did to accommodate them. If the opportunity isn't available, look at windows, and instead of copying the look & feel, try and imagine why this was developed the way it was. Check this link for a starter. Also look at Windows servers and the services they provide to manage an installed base of clients.
Remember in your little holy war with the devil, you will lose if you aren't focused on what should be your main objective, satisfying users, and providing them with a better product. So go take your toys and go home, it won't help you until you start thinking like a company, with a product to sell, and customers to satisfy. At which point, you may just have a chance of winning, until then, your main user base will be those that believe, and that's it. Look at Firefox, they have full-page ads, they get it.
Please don't forget the people that can't switch!
Linux has a major advantage over Windows: Everybody likes it. I know lot's of people and companies that would like to switch, but can't do it for a couple of reasons.
The best Linux Desktop doesn't help much if your graphic card won't work, you can't print or your expensive digicam isn't supported.
Of course you could buy a new printer, digicam or whatever right now, but it does make switching over to Linux an expensive endevour and does offset any cost advantages Free Software normally does have.
So the easiest thing for this people is to switch to Firefox and OpenOffice right now, take care the next time you buy a piece of hardware that it is support by Linux and switch to Linux when everything works with it.
So how does your migration strategy look like?
I'm responsible for a company having 2500 WinNt Clients running Lotus Notes, MS Office 97, IE 5.5 and lots of Windows Apps you don't want to hear of implementing Austrian Insurance Law (some of them are so old, that the don't work with WinXP).
We could upgrade to WinXP and OfficeXP without any additional license fees, but my management didn't want to invest any additional money (Main reason why we are going to upgrade to WinXP is because its getting harder to get device driver for WinNT).
And now please tell me how would your Open Source Migration Strategy look like?
A simple switch from IE to Firefox is complicated enough, because every Ecommerce Site we use would have to be tested. Migrating to OpenOffice would be another major undertaking. Replacing Lotus Notes with something else isn't simple too. Testing all our old 16 Bit Win 3.11 Application with Wine also need it's time.
Everything of this could be done, no doubt about that. But do you really think it's going to help OpenSource on the Desktop if you have to do every of this steps at once instead of doing one step after the other?
You can use Windows for free after you bought it (and most companies already did that). The big question will be: Is it cheaper to migrate to Longhorn or to Linux?
If a companies Desktop in 2 year looks like Linux (running Firefox, OpenOffice,...) it will be a clear choice.
If it's a either Windows or Linux most companies will stick with windows (because Linux on the desktop seams too risky).
With all due respect, the argument is flawed. In practice, it goes something like this:
1. User A uses Windows because "that's all there is".
2. Open Source guru B introduces A to Linux/*BSD/whater open source platform.
3. A complains "but there's no apps that do email like Outlook Express!" (for example)
4. B introduces A to Thunderbird, which is an absolutely *awesome* email program, and runs everywhere, including Windows.
5. While A drools over all the cool stuff that Thunderbird does, B quietly mentions that Linux/*BSD/whatever (1) doesn't need virus protection software or anti-spyware/adware programs, and (2) never crashes.
6. While A has fun with Thunderbird, noting how much faster and easier it is to work with, even on Windows, she quietly thinks about how many times he or she has to reboot Windows because it's locked up her machine or just gotten flaky and she's lost just time, or even data because she hadn't saved that document or spreadsheet she'd been working on before Windows crashed on her.
7. About a week later, B gets a call from A, asking how easy it would be to install (insert O/S of choice here) and move her data and documents over. B explains that since there are applications that run on both Windows and Linux/*BSD, it's a snap to move the data between Windows and the new operating system.
8. Two or three hours after B shows up at A's office with a hard drive in a USB enclosure to backup her data and a set of CDs to install Mandrake/RedHat/SuSE/his favorite distro, the job is done. Another very happy client. :)
Remember, the applications may drive the desktop market, but the applications are merely a wrapping for the gift within - the more robust open source operating system - which the user never sees, but gets mightly angry when it doesn't work like it should.
I've been writing software for over 25 years, been involved in working on Linux for 13 years, and I'm here to tell you - Linux and the *BSD variants "just work". No rebooting because an app screwed something up, no cold boots, no lockups, "it just works". Applications that work on both platforms meanss that it will be easier to make the switch away from Windows when the use gets tired of putting up with its instability and bugs.
That's good enough for me - and my clients.
What Aaron essentially says is that Linux doesn't have any advantages compared to Windows, besides the apps. (Stability and security somehow do not count, in Aaron's view...) And therefore, for Linux not to lose precious marketshare, OSS developers are discouraged from porting apps to Windows and supposed to act essentially Microsoftish way -- creating lock-in on purpose, denying people CHOICE (you know, that thing the OSS is all about)... It's very sad to see such attitudes to appear.
Artem Vakhitov
Factories install less than the techies. Techs work any way they want. And somehow they always conclude Windows is better.
What?
Windows is free. Let's face it. Just as linux. Pirated or not, that changes nothing. Piracy is Microsoft's great ally.
Labor is not free.
Millions of techies at every corner of the planet install and re-install clones and old Pentiums every day. Much, more more systems than the stores sell. They install Windows, because they want to.
Why? It's either easier, or it makes more money, or both.
They're paid for their time. It takes longer to install Linux and get paid. Plus windows is what the customer wants. The end. Oh - and he'll reliably come back in a few months with spyware, virus, and crashes, all over again, ready to pay again, he has no option. But don't say it out loud.
It's easier to learn how to install Windows. It works, the customer is happy - leave it. Linux gives more barriers.
Why does windows "work"? The modem, video, network, sound, and mouse work.
Suse, Red Hat, Knoppix, all will likely leave several unresolved driver issues. And perhaps user issues.
Issues easily, quickly, and frequently "solved" with Windows, 98, ME, or XP.
Linux will grow when the armies of techies decide they want it.
They will decide when the installation time is shorter than windows. Including all drivers, troubleshooting all drivers, and apps.
The main project for Windows to move forward, therefore, is: internet access, first. Than sound - for music and games.
Meaning
1- Winmodem/Linmodems.
2- Video drivers.
3- Network cards.
4- Mouse
"Installs easier and faster than Windows? Accesses the Net? Opens Word and Excel files? Let's do it."
The small-business corporate and home markets only need that. Nothing more.
If Linux is to grow, that's what it needs. The rest is just blablabla, at most a nice detail - unless you're in IT.
If Firefox were only available on Linux, there is no way it would have been the success it is today. It is by writing software that caters to the needs of the largest set of people that one can be successful. Firefox is only a piece of a larger system - on Windows it's a system that more or less works for people, or is at least what they're used to.
Linux on the whole has and continues to fall down in many areas that Firefox does not. It is by addressing these issues that it will be successful, not by any other means.
Ben Goodger
Lead Engineer, Mozilla Firefox
You make a good argument, but it doesn't hold water to the real world situation. The main hurdle for getting off Windows is not the applications. The problem is DRIVERS! I have tried 20 versions of open source Linux systems and I can't get any of them to work with my wireless network, (also had problems with my serial ata drive) which means that I can't access the damn internet. So I am still using Windows. I am pretty tech savvy, but if I can't get the OS up and running pretty easy then I am not going to start converting over people to a system that they are going to have problem after problem with. I am all about reducing my tech support time. I find that with Windows XP I can keep my tech support time at a much lower level than if I moved them over th Linux.
Now more to what you are talking about. Open source apps on the PC are great because it will make it that much easier to port people over to linux once the driver issue is resolved. Hopefully Linux systems will be easier to use before Microsoft releases it's next version of windows.
I feel like you guys are missing the point: Is the point here to give people great applications to use, or to force them to use the operating system they want?
I use Linux primarily, but I don't expect, or even WANT everyone I know to suddenly switch to linux, at least not yet. What's more, I have to use windows all the time too, and I have a laptop with windows on it. On that laptop, windows boots faster, runs faster, and takes less memory - most importantly, the power management works. Yet... I don't particularly like windows, and especially IE or outlook. We have windows PCs floating around work and other places too.
Being able to use GAIM and OpenOffice and FireFox on those machines is a great thing. If we couldn't, it's not like someone would say "Well I want to use FireFox, guess we'd better reinstall these machines." No, we would just be stuck with IE.
Likewise I do consulting for a client that uses all linux servers and all windows desktops. They use OpenOffice on some machines and FireFox on all of them. This has saved them money and given them better products. It helps those of us who use linux when more people use the same apps we use, it helps those people, and it makes it easier for them to transition later. That organization currently uses some windows-only apps, but when those have a linux version, they will likely start phasing new machines in as linux.
If our one and only goal were to force everyone to use Linux, this article might be right. If our goal is simply to spread OSS, it's dead wrong, and incompatible with reality. Not everyone can suddenly throw out Windows, like it or not. We don't have to lower ourselves to Microsoft's tatics.
@asiego:
You're thinking from a corporate perspective, where it's important to limit the options of a customer when those options might allow them to choose a competitor's product. When dealing with OSS, options empower users to make choices that are right for them, and that's good for everyone. It's good for users because they can choose an open source application without getting attached to a platform agenda. It's good for OSS developers because it builds a wider user base from which to gather mindshare, corporate/academic sponsorship, and contributing users.
You are right to note that Microsoft can limit the choices of users of its platform in a variety of ways. They will continue to leverage their stack to add compelling features to their applications, and they will also use less savory tactics like data lock-in through closed file formats, and co-opting/breaking standards. These tactics only highlight the advantages of a platform without an agenda, where anyone can improve the stack or swap out individual layers without changing the whole thing.
Availability of some set of required applications is a prerequisite to usage of an operating system, but if the applications are made available on several platforms, then they can compete on their own merits. Linux still has needs some improvement before it's ready for that battle, but it's coming along quickly. Certainly freedom to improve and innovate at any level in the stack is one compelling advantage of Linux as a platform, and the tighter Microsoft pulls its .net to lock in Windows users, the more obvious that will become.
Mike Lococo
p.s. As an aside, the right project certainly can gather contributing users from the Win32 userbase. The C++ toolchain for Win32 can be a hassle, but there's nothing to stop people from writing bug reports and documentation, making art, or developing in the many languages do have well supported win32 toolchains (Perl, PHP, and many many others). Even if the density of contributing users is much lower, the potential user base is much larger.
>It is an oft-stated fallacy that Free Software only
>matters to programmers. The argument says: "Why would
>I, a non-programmer, care if I have access to the
>source code? I just want something that works!"
>That's a naive, short-termist and self-centred
>reasoning. Free Software obviously benefits
>non-programmers for many reasons, including:
If you didn't realize, the majority of people -are- Naive Short-term, self-centered thinkers.
We all are, to some extent (maybe more or less than others). For example, I use the AIM protocol under GAIM most of the time, when I could be using Jabber ot one of the open protocols more. What's more, when you do think longer term (like encoding all your music into OGG files), you can get burned by lack of support.
People have to be able to switch gradually. If you force it to be all at once, it will end up being not at all.
"Worst, the Mozilla project will not be able to muster a meaningful response because they do not have access to the playing field (the underlying software stack) that Microsoft will have beat them on. You can not compete on a playing field to which you do not have access"
I disagree:
Firefox is built on top of Gecko, like Thunderbird, like NVu, like Chatzilla, like Seamonkey, like Komodo. So Mozilla does fully control the playing field, because Gecko and nothing else is the playing field. The more apps we see built on top of Gecko the more irrelevant becomes the underlying OS. So we need more XUL apps like games, office software etc.
"People will once again switch back to IE and FireFox will be Netscape all over again."
How can you remember Netscape's story but still make your argument?
Microsoft worked so hard to crush netscape because it made it possible to create applications running on top of the browser that didn't depend on Windows, thus making its users less dependent on Windows if their apps can also work in other OS's and thus more likely to switch than if another OS doesn't have the same applications (or at least equivalent ones but then you still need to pay for the retraining ).
If we only port an application or two to Windows it still makes it quite hard to replace/retrain for the other Windows-only applications but if we make it easier for Windows developers to produce cross-platform applications by providing them with a Free Software framework that are at least as easy or (even better) easier to use than Windows-only framework (with a license that allows them to use them for proprietary software) and get them to develop their otherwise-Windows-only software for this framework (so it would also work for Linux/BSD...) with time we gradually lessen the application barrier to entry that exists on Windows and all OS's that this framework works on can compete on their own merit.
This is especially important for games. If there was a mature game-development framework that worked both on Windows and Linux it would enable many people who would otherwise keep Windows because of games to use Linux (and "use a console for games" doesn't work because we are trying to make them switch so if we tell them that they are more likely to stay with Windows and all its games than bother trying out Linux).
So not only should we develop Free applications for Windows but more importantly we should develop frameworks for Windows, especially game ones (some would say we need one for Linux too so why not make it cross-platform from the start?).
One thing - you assume I actually care about competing against windows, and competing against commercial software. Perhaps if Microsoft was not so villified in your mind, this wouldn't be a problem either.
When I write software and give it away for free, it is not for a political political agenda. I hope that when I use free software, I don't have to pay in terms of complying political agenda instead of cash.
Or to summarize - the value in an app like firefox to me is in firefox itself, not some grand unified vision of world conquest. You will not find any unification here, because everyone contributes for their own, personal reason.
That said, I think you are very wrong in your belief that segregating all applications into a microsoft camp and a linux camp will improve adoption. People choose platforms based on the apps they use, switching even to Mac OS X (which runs an official version of Word, an official Quickbooks port, etc) is still very risky. With open source apps available and in wide use on windows, you are telling people 'so, you want to get used to a new Control Panel layout?'. Without these apps available, you are asking a huge leap of faith. Outside of hobbyists, people use computers to accomplish non-related goals, experimenting with a new operating system has no value, just lost productivity.
Open source will never, ever be able to muster the value proposition for end users to have them leave everything behind and attempt to start anew; not if they are already using Windows and can afford hardware which includes a Windows installation.
I don't think we should define the platform in terms of the software. I like to think of the Free Software Platform - that's what matters to me. Obviously quality and design counts, but I wouldn't have that a problem running free software applications on top of something like ReactOS. So waht counts is the freedom, the license, the philosophy - and what the applications do. What's underneath isn't as important.
http://www.translate.org.za/blogs/david/archives/2004-12-17T11_31_56.html
Here is link to an article of somebody who explains why he uses OpenSource end-user software on Windows. Just as an example to show that Aaron is right.
While I recognise the validity of your arguments as they relate to the personal desktop, I can't agree with you entirely. I think open source advocates are continually missing the real battle - the corporate desktop. You'll notice that Microsoft will drop squads of executives and piles of cash on any corporate entity that even entertains the thought of switching to an open desktop, while continually bleeding dry the home user. Corporate IT environments where user workspaces are centralised through Terminal Services, and require a limited subset of software, are the perfect entry points for the open alternative and yet I don't think there is enough 'on the ground' technical knowledge to support those smaller companies with 100 to 1000 users who might seriously consider switching to Linux and would fall under the radar of Microsoft. This is where the real push to open source desktops will come from, and once these types of companies begin switching, and we see 10 to 15% market share for Linux, changes to other corporate setups, and importantly home setups, will come, and vendors will take Linux support much more seriously. For this though there needs to be more Linux awareness among those who provide support to small-to-medium companies, and to achieve this we need technical colleges and universities to adopt Linux certifications the way they have adopted Microsoft and Cisco certifications, as this is where the majority of those working for these companies are getting their training and learning the possible configurations for corporate software environments. Perhaps Red Hat, Novell and others should be considering making educational institutions some offers they can't refuse.
"The more software we port to Windows the more we reinforce this application availability imbalance and strengthen the user's inertia to stay on Windows."
Despite being a proud Linux user, I must comment the following to this: being on Windows is not the opposite of supporting Open Source. By the way, do you even know what GNU stand for? I'll telel you: GNU is Not Unix. And I guess this tells a lot -- if not everything..
Salut.
"Making the situation even worse, by keeping people on Windows we decrease the odds of them getting involved and contributing back to the community. This is because the tools necessary to do so are relatively rare on Windows. How many Windows users have debuggers or compilers or even receive awareness marketing on the part of their primary software vendor (Microsoft) to "Get Involved and Give Back"? Moreover, resources that could be spent making the Open Source desktop environments more compelling are instead being spent on making Windows more compelling in the form of superior applications."Like the majority of Windows users know what a debugger is or how to code anything useful. Most Windows users probably couldn't give anything back even if they so desired. And again the majority probably couldn't even get Linux installed and working properly on their machine so it really isn't an option for them.
Like it or not we live in a Windows world. I don't like it which is one reason that I use Mac OS X but I still have to deal with Windows way more than I prefer to.
I have been a Windows user for ages, and an open-source advocate for a few years. However I just recently switched to Linux, for a number of reasons -- mainly, I was already using OSS programs all day, so changing platform wasn't much of a hassle. However, having all these apps available on win32 gave me a long time to "adapt" to OSS ways of doing things. If I had to choose between a 100% OSS-world and a 100% win-world without any point of contact, I would have remained in my little world of pirated photoshops. In big companies, "make or break" choices like the ones you'd like to force would ALWAYS end up as "no-choice", that is, sticking with MS. No one has ever been fired for choosing IBM/MS... much better to introduce people to the wonders of OOo, removing MS locks, and then, after workforce training costs have been partially absorbed and a new MS-forced migration is looming, say "by the way, there is this little system called Linux. It's better, it's Free, and your OOo documents will run flawlessy."
While I believe that your arguments are very true, I think that there is an important aspect which has not been addressed - application familiarity. What do I mean? Currently, Windows desktop users are often reluctant to migrate to the FOSS desktops because they are unfamiliar with the available applications and are afraid of missing tools that they need. If these users were to become familiar with these same tools, say OpenOffice.org on Windows then they might be comfortable trying Linux or FreeBSD.
This exact scenario is used by my company, Niagara Telecom, with their small business clients to help migrate them away from Windows where that makes sense. Because the vast majority of our customers use OpenOffice.org for the bulk of their desktop app needs, we are often able to, after some time, begin moving Linux into their environments with little disruption. This is not a fool proof plan and it doesn't affect home users in the same manner, but it has been effective for us in the small business arena and we continue to use FOSS tools on Windows to bridge between the two worlds that we support.
- Scott
instead of porting OpenSource to windows and keeping it current, just port a release or two for windows, and include a note in the README file letting the Windoze user know that further development for this application will only continue for the Linux builds, and that eventually the Windoze build will fall in to obsolescence, hopefully promting the Windoze user to give Linux a chance on their desktop if they want to run newer/Current versions of said software...
basicly giving the Windoze user a taste of whats available for Linux and if they want the real deal they will only find it in Linux :^)
KDE has always been about making something that looks like Windows, so it's only natural to take the best of KDE and port to Windows. That's the ultimate way to "look like" Windows is to run on Windows.
I've never thought that KDE stopping short by emulating Windows was going to work, and now this is just backing that up.
KDE: How to migrate desktop Linux users to Windows.
The idea that Linux and other open-source projects need to compete with Microsoft is a mistaken one in my opinion. Open source software is about providing alternatives to closed source software, not wholesale replacement of same. I played the competition game around Windows for a long time and have only just realized that by "competing" with Microsoft, the open source community will be drawn into a conflict that forces it to adopt many of the strategies and mindsets used by closed-source purveyors in order to "win." If the OSS community concentrates only on making the best software possible, making it better than itself, making it fit the user's needs, iteratively, not better than some "pay-for" software, and most importantly: staying true to its ideals, its software will naturally become the tools of choice. Ignore the "competition," do the work and let the users decide.
I blogged a response at
propirat.net/oracle/But be aware, it's evil ;)
-Richard
That was a good post,however i dont fully agree with it.
So my thought is i like linux,but i dont use it as often as windows,mainly because of my 3d applications and support for such high end gfx.
My problem with this outlook is that yes there is many people still using windows,because there is still gaps to be filled before a switch can be made.As i have allready said it is not possible to switch totally for myself because of my 3d application (3d Max Studio) which isn`t available for linux,and drivers as so poor that even if it was possible it makes working in 3d very hard.I can hear some people say,"but there is Alias Maya for linux",yes there is,and if people want to donate $3000 or so for the package i will do a switch.
As it stands at the moment,i use windows,but i dont allways like it.I have come to my own comprimise by getting rid of as much rubbish as possible and replacing programs with opensource and freeware alternatives.If you stop people from developing opensource programs for win32 then i feel alot of people like myself are going to bear the brunt of the deal.
If i told you that you couldn`t have coffee anymore because other people get hyperactive would you not feel a little outraged?
Not a very good annology,but it will have to do.
So i do agree with most of what you say,but i say untill linux is able to do the things i need, then i will continue to use windows and my choice of free/opensource ware.
At what point in time did Computer Science turn into Political Science?
I think Open Source software is a great idea. However, I do not understand why people feel that Open Source software is a tool by which to force their political beliefs onto others. (i.e. GPL)
This article is making the argument that people shouldn't develop high quality free open source software for Windows. And why not? Because you don't like windows? Well, too bad. I thought Open Source software was supposed to be about choice. If someone wants to port an open source app to Windows, good for them. I applaud them. I don't understand the "us vs them" mentality that permeates the OSS movement. Do you write software for a platform? Or do you write software for people? If you write software for people, then the platform isn't a religious decision anymore. Even if you write software for yourself, the platform to develop for or port to is your own decision.
Everyone keeps mentioning firefox. I think the office and other business apps have a learning curve. But not a browser. The all function the same from what I'e seen between Opera, FF, and MSIE...
As a windows user, I think this post is dead wrong.
I don't use the command line, I have no impulse to use the command line. I don't like Windows, I don't like Bill Gates.
I think desktop Linux is a great concept. So far, an unfulfilled dream.
For the past three years I have downloaded the various distros every six months or so, checking how they are doing and if they are nearing the fulfillment of my needs. Recently I bought SUSE and installed it dual boot. I keep hoping that it will "be there" at some point.
I have transitioned to almost all open source programs. When Linux reaches the point that it meets my needs, it will be easy to switch (I have high hopes for Open Office 2.0 database;-). I don't think that I am that untypical.
I don't think that I have ever used so many "I"s in a post before. But, hey, it's personal.
I disagree. Open source on the desktop - whether it is the underlying OS isn't the question right now. Getting users familiar with the Open Source Desktop Software Stack will make transitioning to a NON-windows OS all the easier.
Firefox, thunderbird, and OOo already are on every desktop that I use, Windows or Linux, and I'm finding myself less and less tied to Windows even at work where my design apps like photoshop and dreamweaver are critical.
Once those apps are replaced by Open source software that I trust (having used it on w32 reliably), making the switch will be a logical upgrade.
Pretty soon, what OS you're running just isn't going to matter, because you'll know all the best applications in both places.
Read my recent article on this topic at
http://www.glitchnyc.com/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/technology/opensource/aLinkToThePast.phblox
Dear Aaaron,
You say: "...the vast majority of users select which operating system to run based on the applications available for it." You are wrong my friend.
The vast majority of users don't know the difference between an operating system and application. Unbelievable but true.
The vast majority of users don't use computers as you and I do. They use their computers for playing games, writing letters, e-mailing, chatting, dating, searching for porno, gambling, shopping, reading news, home-banking etc. Some of them do all of these things, but most of them do only one or two these things. And most of them are still newbies although they have been using their computers for years. And the most of all computer users will always be newbies.
But you may ask: how do they do all this work done? The answer is easy: they only learn what they need to learn to accomplish some tasks. Nothing more. The vast majority of drivers are not mechanics, and the vast majority of computer users are not developers. Period.
So please don't vaste your precious time lamenting on how users don't use open source software and/or open source operating systems. They don't simply care. They get their operating system and some basic applications preinstalled and for 'free' when they purchase their computers and they only need to learn how to click on an icon, write an adress in adress-bar in the browser, save some bookmarks etc.
Most of people will never spend more time on computers then it is absolutely necessary. And when something goes wrong (vira, spyware etc.) there is always a better chance to find a guy who is a windows guru then a guy who is a linux guru to get things fixed.
So why bother to change your operating system when you actually:
1. don't know what an operating system is,
2. don't care what an operating system is,
3. have learned how to acomplish some tasks and don't want to be confused by different looking desktop, icons, taskbars, toolbars, menus etc.
4. don't want to spend your precious time to learn another operating system, another desktop, another application etc.
5. know that securing your windows computer is still less trouble then installing a new operating system with all its drivers problems, codecs problems, flash and java and quick time and wma and real problems, and
vaste of time learning something new which is actually nothing revolutionary new but slightly different.
And here is my point:
Linux has failed to do something new and revolutionary on/with desktop.
Linux desktop is only a clone of windows environment. KDE is as bad as MS Windows and MacOSX. Gnome, XFCE, Enlightenment, IceWM all suck.
KDE have to re-think the desktop paradigm.
KDE has that technology but doesn't use it because none of the KDE developers don't think what is beyond the borders.
Pixel here, pixel there is not a solution.
Think. And once again, you have technology to do that. To revolutionarize the desktop. To make things easier. And then you can talk about people switching to Linux and KDE.
I disagree as well...
I love using open source apps! I have told myself that I must use Open unless I can't find a suitable open sub. Even though I have made a commitment to use only open source apps, I can't do it on Linux. Why? Because Linux is not user friendly. You still need the command line, you still can't download programs from the internet and install them (because most are .exe install files.) The file system is difficult because of spaces. If I have a million files in windows that I want to transfer to Linux, it becomes a nightmare.
I want to use Linux, but because of the differences, I can't. It is like using the wrong hand to write. You have all the equipment, and the ability, but it isn't comfortable or productive. It is easier to use what you are used to. This is the biggest problem with the linux community. They all push the command line and tell you to RTFM. Why should I, when I have my right hand and it still works!
Now my other point, If linux creators ever gets the fact that people want to switch, but can't or want to switch but don't have the luxury of re-learning a new tool. They would create an interface and file system that works like windows and then people would switch. In the mean time, if everyone learns to use open apps, the switch is not at all painful. Because they will know how to be productive in their environment.
I think the author is overanalyzing the situation from a somewhat paranoid perspective. The author blames OSS availability on alternative platforms for the long-term decline in the use of Linux. However, the author should keep in mind that without Windows, Firefox would not be achieving such a large adoption.
Consider this: users prefer to use applications that they are comfortable with. 95% of users don't care about the OS, but simply that the OS can run the applications they are familiar with. The average user does NOT choose an OS based on security or some free software that he/ she is unfamiliar with. Offering users OSS on Windows allows them to become comfortable with an application they would otherwise never encounter. Once a critical mass is reached when the user is comfortable with OSS on their Windows machine, THEN it won't matter to the user whether the underlying system is Windows or Linux. THEN users will be more comfortable purchasing or using a Linux system, because they're familiar with the applications.
If the long term goal is to have the largest number of users migrating to Linux, OSS application HAVE to be available for Windows. Windows is the stepping stone, not a stone that will bash Linux. So, relax. Everything will be OKAY.
Open Source is comming to a desktop near you and Windows is just a stepping stone. Many thanks to Klaus Knopper
you can now taste it before you switch and I have hit the knoppix-installer switch on more than a few machines . It has been built and they are comming don't worry be happy and enjoy the ride. :)
GNU software on Windows, is a chance for ... Linux !
Don't ask this question again, it's useless.
Why are users still under windows ?
Because they say "is there outlook IE and Office on Linux ?"
But now, i forced them to user Fireforx and Thunderbird and OOo, and and can say "Yes, there is Firefox and Thuderbird and OOo", so they accept to switch to Linux and they are happy.
I know it's the way we must stay. Invade Windows and let the seduction make it's action... When all the software they use are multi-plateform, they go to Linux.
At the moment most people won't switch to Linux if they cannot go back to Windows in the case they do not feel satisfied with Linux or simply because they don't find all the applications they need. This is why *we need* some Win/Lin compatible applications that make the bridge between both competitors.
Personnaly, I moved to Linux *after* being sure I could easily use the same Internet apps (Firefox & Thunderbird) running on *the same profile files*. You cannot erase win32 and install Linux over. You need to be able to switch from one to the other during a certain time.
Firefox was the first open source app I really used and he lead me to Linux. Only high quality win32 open source apps can walk people throught open source and make them land on Linux. I think this is the most difficult Firefox challenge: be the entry to open source for millions of standard win users. But he has the required features...
The article is bullshit... Why? It misses some main points.
First, Windows is the no.1 desktop system at the moment. I don't like this, i don't like the instability of windows and so on, but that's a fact.
Linux can now go as beos does... Doesn't port anything, doesn't integrate beos-apps into existing desktop systems (via porting) and never really spawn around the world as an alternative to windows....
Or: Port applications to other desktop systems silently until most of the used programs are opensource/gnu/linux apps. THEN, a change to another desktop system (like linux) is easier for the main windows user because everything he uses on windows is there on linux (and was there before)... This is a point why companies _can_ change to linux... "Hey, why not change to linux, it's cheap, everything we need is there, let's kick windows...
And another thing i don't like in this article:
You mentioned the example of opensource FireFox... Linux itself is NOT the word for opensource. It uses things that is opensource, linux itself is opensource, but do you think opensource is ONLY for linux? What about ports to macintosh, zeta, SkyOS (and many more free OS)? Are they also not allowed to have opensource software in their install-list?
Linux has a problem: they think windows and the use of windows must change to opensource thinking to let the users change to linux. Bullshit. Linux must provice a whole system which is over and over better than everything else (and this isn't feasible because everything is invented yet and ported to every desktop os).
And another thing: without the windows ports, the known software like FireFox, OpenOffice and more will not be as famous as it is now, because without the ports, only a small community would use and know these programs. Some day, people may think, hey, another program mainly available on linux? Maybe i need to switch?
Religious stuff... Think about marketing. Think about economy... Only a few think like that, but in this world you have to think about applications, not about desktop systems.
I dumped Linux 3 years ago and moved to OS X... and I've never looked back. I have an OSS operating system at the heart of my system with a vastly superior UI to anything GNOME, KDE, etc. offer and I have better applications than anything the OSS community can offer me... yet, I still have the freedom to use Apache, PostgreSQL, and any other OSS app I want if I need it. The only way I'm leaving OS X behind is if free Linux/BSD distributions are as easy to use and provide a better platform for me to be productive.Here we have the primary reason why Free and Open Source Software is not making significant inroads. The majority of humanity is nothing but selfcentered cattle. The only concern they have is their basic instinct that says "Is something benefitting me over all others?"
The information age is about sharing and cooperation, but as most people don't use their higher brainfunctions and trod through life on basic evolutionary instincts, the higher values of prosperity through Freedom and sharing never register.
Why should the average runt care if his neighbour benefits too if he uses something? The neighbour is a potential competitor, so it is good for the runt if the neighbor cannot glean benefit from use of an accessible, universal software stack. Freedom is a word in a dictionary to the cattle.
Our anonymous here is no different. He doesn't care about his fellow human being. He only cares about himself. He is even promoting himself by saying that he has a FOSS OS at the core of Mac OS X. Conveniently forgetting that he didn't get the Darwin bits of OS X under the APL. He is using FOSS here as a status symbol, not as something he values out of principal.
The FOSS community can write all the superior applications they want, the basic philosophy for the existance of these programs will never register in the unwashed masses. You can preach about Freedom of choice and yadda, yadda, yadda, but the moment a piece of cattle got its grubby little paws on the goods, he'll think: *I got it FOR FREE, SUCKER!*
What do you expect from a group that doesn't care about laws being passed that erode their constitutional rights, but that is willing to throw a national hissy fit if their favourite soap serie is being cancelled prematurely?
You can get Free Software on their computers, but you can't get the Freedom Philosophy in their heads. We might as well face it, they are a lost cause. When we care about Freedom we should cater it to those that know what it means and who are willing to make some sacrifices to convenience to safeguard their right to have Freedom.
r_a_trip.
Hi there, nice post - but you missed something. I've written it in more details [ here ]
Have a nice holiday everyone.
Thanks for your article; you've put a lot of thought into it, and it was some interesting reading.
I would offer a different perspective, though. You said at the beginning that people choose their OS not because of the OS itself, rather for the applications. Exposure of programs like Firefox and OpenOffice, the current two open-source darlings, to consumer-level users is strategically advantageous for Linux. When large resellers start bundling these royalty-free applications with their new systems, their market share will explode, as it did with Office back in the 90s. And bundle they will; it's a no-brainer, barring some insidious political maneuvering by Microsoft.
At some point in the near future, when cross-platform alternatives are accepted parts of the computer landscape, the choice will no longer be between spartan Linux or bloated Windows. It'll be the cheap one or the expensive one. When faced with two systems that are funcitionally identical, I'd usually choose the cheap one, me not being much of a status-symbol type.
Open Source on Windows is a necessary step in levelling the playing field. Once people are used to seeing applications other than those from Microsoft, they just may take a look at a Lindows computer and say, "What? It runs Firefox? And OpenOffice? And Maya? And Doom 3? I'll take it!"
One more small point: About Firefox not being able to compete with IE, without access to the underlying OS? Firefox has already done exactly that. If Microsoft is roused then to create an even better browser than Firefox, it's a positive development. The point is to get a better product as a consumer, not score ra-ra points for our side. It will raise the bar, also for open source products, if Microsoft gets its act together and produces something innovative for a change.
Thanks again for your article.
Both OpenOffice and Mozilla started their life as proprietary cross-plattform software products, StarOffice resp. Netscape.
You argue that those guys working on theses programs should dump the cross-plattform-feature, thus making these programs less usefull? It's a bad idea. Freedom is about choice, but you talk about taking away choice.
Like some people said before, FireFox users on Windows force web designers to make web sites that work with FireFox. This way, FF/Win directly works in favor of FF/Linux.
So look at OOo. IMO the greates concern for most people who consider switch Office suites are their own large piles of existing documents, not the occasional .doc in the mailbox.
For this reasons, people who have lots of MSOffice documents will not soon accept a new operating system without native support for MS Office. OOo on Windows offers a relatively painless migration szenario: All new documents are written with OOo. Existing documents are processed with OOo, whenever possible; only if that fails, users can fallback to MS Office. After some time, maybe two years or so, all current docs are in OOo formats. _Now_ there is a real chance to switch to the Linux desktop.
> people move when their is a motivation to do so, not because "they can"
Hm ... you're wrong on that one I think.
I think the basic logic behiind a switch is:
motivation && "they can"
If there is no motivation, they don't switch, but they also won't switch, if they can't properly use the other apps, because they are not familiar with them.
Note that the motivation can be anything from "try it out for a day", "something isn't working on windows" ( !! see next paragraph!) or "something isn't available on windows" or "just to use the same thing at home as at work" ... or whatever you might think.
"Something isn't working on Windows" ... is that even possible? ;) ... it is ... One of the best things, that can happen for the OSS desktop is, that more and more people use OSS Applications on Windows and that these Applications become a threat to Microsoft. What would MS do, if sales from their Office reduce?
You said already said it, it is MS's playground and OSS probably can't beat MS. As seen with WinXP SP2 MS is very likley to break 3rd party Applications with their "improvements" ... and suddenly here we have that situation, many people can no longer use the Apps they are used to, "something isn't working on Windows anymore"
There is huge a motivation to switch ... either the Apps or the OS, what do you think that *users* will switch, the OS or the Apps?
> You can not compete on a playing field to which you do not have access!
Right, the playingfield is Windows and the "more access" OSS-Apps have to that platform the better they can compete! An OSS-App cannnot compete at all if it has no access to that platform.
> By porting software to Windows, we eliminate the majority of the competitive advantage of Free Software desktops in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of consumers while Microsoft has all the rope they need to shut the door once again on us. We have left our flank exposed while expending our efforts improving the position of the unfriendly force.
To continue your "military analogy" ...
In order to win a whole campaign, one has obviously to win battles. One could try to fight one huge and all deciding battle and attack the heart of the enemy or one can try to win the campaign with many smaller less important and less glorious battles until the troups are well deployed for a final strike.
MS exposes many weak flanks to the OSS and any victory on these weak flanks will reduce MS's possibilities to "shut the door on us once again", because this would mean that they enforce the users to take their choice ... continue to use the Apps they are used to and switch the OS or to switch the App's and stay with their OS!
If you think, that's a no-win situation for the OSS-desktop, you contradict yourself,
> since application availability is a key factor in operating system usage.
The key factor is not how many different applications are available on a specific OS, the key factor is are the applications people use available for a specific OS.
You already said it, MS will not port their applications to linux anytime soon. And users won't switch OS, if the applications they are used to are not available.
How do we want to escape from that vicious circle?
Or in other words, how do you want to attack the heart of the enemy, the OS itself, with that bulwark of applications that MS built around its heart?
All you have written is perfectly well, logically and nothing is wrong in it. All in all a very good description about the dilemma of the OSS desktop development.
However, you entirely left one important (if not hte most important) point!
> If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows.
Right! That's how people decide what OS they want ... nothing to add!
> Conversely, if the applications they want are to be found only on Linux/BSD, they will eventually end up using Linux/BSD.
What are the "applications they want"?
The important part you left out is: How do people decide what applications they want?
Generally speaking, people compare applications and then decide.
Be it a comparision from what the read in magazines/newspapers, on what they see on a another computer or by trying out different choices for a specific task.
But people do such comparisions on specific tasks/topics and not on the whole system overall!
People always need some motivation to change anything, wheather it is the OS, an single application, a whole suite of applications, just the carpet in their living room or the city where they live.
Without motivation people don't change anything, that is especially important for changes that imply other additional changes. Obviously it takes much more motivation to move to another city than to change the carpet.
> Can you hear the dominoes falling as they approach?
I really think your concerns are unfounded. I have been using cygwin in Windows (great bash shell), I installed KDE-cygwin and got the KDE desktop in windows, but bnasically all I could use was browser and editors. Big deal. I use Gimp, OO, Xemacs, and Firefox, mysql, mysqladmin in the Windows evironment. I love it...
.
I run linux at home, but windows in the office. Around my office, nobody cares. Heck, I can tell you I see people buying Adobe pdf program for about $1100.oo (CAN) a pop when I use MS Word and PDFcreator to do the same thing. Here's another one, we just went through standardizing on MS Office when OO was free - forget that it does more.
.
Ordinary people are not going to linux. They are probably just got their first computer and windows allows them to not know an operating system and still be able to use email, browse internet, and use MS Office. About 3 years ago, I knew a windows user who did not know where the hard disk thing was and used diskettes to keep track of files.
.
Personally I would love a full-fledged kde environment to run as an extension to windows so I get the full range of open source software at my finger tips while being constrained to 'working' in a windows environment. But I assure you, that's just me.
.
You may as well worry about China. When China goes middle class and internet, the internet will be Chinese not English.
.
Hell there is all kinds of stuff to scare yourself silly with. Then on the other hand there is the sheer beauty and power of opensource, bsd and debian.
one more thought: Would anyone dare to switch to Linux if he knew that the major office application is only available for that platform, but not for Windows? If he runs into problems (missing drivers...), he find himself locked on the new platform. In such a scenario, most people choose the safe bet, which would be the market leader's OS.
Absolutely right! And the key here is the resources that are expended by open source projects in porting to and supporting windows. In the case of Mozilla and OpenOffice they will eventually become Windows applications with Linux versions coming out less frequently and with less features and support.
After all if the bulk of your users are on windows, eventually the bulk of your effort will go there. Eventually these projects will be subject to the same logic that applies to commercial ISVs; why spend scarce resources supporting a niche product like the Linux version.
Once we get to that point microsoft will just kill them off by leveraging its control of the operating system. And having left the free software community far behind in their push to embrace windows, these projects will have no place to go.
Its a sad day indeed when free software projects, whose applications are not perfect in any case, spend scarce resources hitching themselves to a hostile windows wagon.
Come on! Don't knock OO. GNU/Linux + OO + Mozilla + $SOME_DE is the only (?) solution if you want to have a cheap office desktop system. The other way is using pirated M$ software. The second way is still the most popular (at least here in Russia).
BTW, I don't know any windows users who use OO. Mozilla is a bit more popular that OO but IE still keeps the biggest part of the market.
Timur (tim a.t yxo d.o.t ru)
You need to keep in mind that this is not a contest. I am a big Linux advocate, but if someone doesn't make the shift from Windows to Linux it is not my loss at all. It is thiers. Linux isn't going to go away, it is just going to become bigger. The business world will go with the OS that offers them the best all around deal. Not just cost, not just popularity but the OS that offers them the least risk over the long haul. The hospital I used to work for (pre retirement) ran Unix. They are now running Linux and many non-critial mission systems and evaluating the possibility of moving mission critical stuff off Unix and onto Linux. Wondering about the hospital you will see Windows boxes mostly on secretary's desks but you will also see a few KDE or Gnome desktops. Go back into IT and you will see that it is Linux/Unix and nothing else on the desktops in there.
Folks, Microsoft is in trouble. This "OS War" in not being fought on Joe Sixpack's computer at home but in large companies and goverments all over the world. The end is nigh.
> And the key here is the resources that are expended by open
> source projects in porting to and supporting windows.
I beg to differ. I don't think Windows ports are made by Linux developers who desert their favourite OS because they want to help MS. They are made by developers who want to or have to work on Windows. For that reason, I think that Windows ports add resources to those projects; they don't take away resources from
free operating systems.
Free source software is just that. Free. It doesnt have rules, and its not written for a specific OS. If people like windows, they will port their open source app to windows. For heaven sakes if people like DOS they will port it to that aswell!
Stop being such a dictator.
I think you have raised some very interesting and valid points. At the very least, something to be thoughtful about.
I think you have raised some very interesting and valid points. At the very least, something to be thoughtful about.
There's an awful lot to comment on here, but I'll be brief.
I'm currently a Windows user, but have played with Linux since RH 5.4. I didn't like it then, but Knoppix has turned my head.
Why? KDE, mostly. KDE is looking very good these days. I haven't made the switch yet, but I'll be giving it a try soon enough. I like Knoppix because it just works, which is all I ask for.
That's my first comment
Secondly, what all of "you" OS developers ignore is the paradox of choice.
A person, when faced with a plethora of choices becomes aroused by them, and curious, true. But that person is unlikely to commit to any of them.
Its a difficult phenomenon to understand, but its true, nonetheless. Its been proven experimentally by psychological research, marketers, etc. You can offer 25 different products to sample and everyone will crowd up to gawk, but you won't sell anything. Offer only six, and they'll select one or two.
As near as I can figure its like this: Windows sucks, right? But I can blame Microsoft, so it isn't my fault. With Linux, if it sucks it IS my fault- I got the 'wrong' one maybe, or I screwed the pooch with it.
A third point: Businesses don't like OS for two major reasons, other than support & interoperability concerns: One, they don't want apps with names like "BitchX" on it and they can't understand non-descriptive lettered ones like "apt-get" either. Two, Open Source sounds to unlearned ears like "open data". They figure if anybody can read the source, then there's no security at all.
Naive, certainly, but true.
Last point: I was on the verge of committing to Linux about 4 years ago and made the mistake of visiting my local LUG. I thought I'd socialize or get poiners, whatever. The one representative I had the misfortune of meeting was such a rude, condescending SOB I wanted to spit in his face.
My point on his, if I have one, is this: Its great to have a tight community, but don't be inbred. Tell your meet & greeters to bathe and make damned sure they have social skills, customer service experience, etc. Technical know-how is not a selling point- salesmanship is.
One large key is missing, the true strenght of MS OS is that it comes bundled in every new computer. The average user never change the OS preinstaled, not even reinstalls it.
Getting ported apps from Linux to Windows opens up doors for Linux becoming an option to more and more OEMs.
As an outsider I am slightly amused by your discussion. Linux is like the BetaMax of 25 years ago. It is a superior product but without a decent marketing department selling it to the market.
No one should ever believe that the public buys a product because it is the best, they buy it because someone repeatedly tell them it is the best and that they must have it. If you want to compete with MicroSoft then you need to get into bed with another major player. Even then it would be an uphill struggle, but with a multi million pound advertising campaign it might just work. Until then be happy with your 5% market share.
That was a very ugly post by r_a_tripp, and illustrates a problem - the problem of POLITICALIZATION OF LIFE. He is basically a hate-monger. He is an example of someone who considers that the only way to enjoy freedom is to do what HE wants. He seems to labour under the delusion that he is better than other people. And on what does he base this delusion? His ability to run Linux and write some code? That hardly seems to be strong enough to bear the weight of the ponderous ideological structure he rears upon it.
One's choice of OS is NOT political - unless a person is one of those pathetic people who have political opinions instead of a personality. One's choice of apps is NOT political - unless, again, a person is one of those pathetic people who have political opinions instead of a personality.
The idea that there is some kind of political statement to be made by using this or that application or OS is just stupid.
The idea that one's choice of OS or app is somehow a moral statement is also just stupid. And by the way, are we - i.e. the "unwashed masses" and "cattle" of r_a_tripp's statement - really supposed to accept the point of view that people who write free sofrware are fit to be our moral guides? It's enough to make a chicken laugh! (Especially considered r_a_tripp's use of terminology, as "unwashed masses" is a favourite description of the higly anti-semitic H.L. Mencken, and of course refering to "people" as "cattle" must remind anyone of the *cattle*-cars in which masses of *people* were transported to Nazi death-camps. Only in r_a_tripp's conception, no doubt, his new Auschwitz will have a sign over its entrance reading, not "Work Makes You Free" but "Free Software Makes You Free.")
In short: If you want to be political, go into politics! Being in the FOSS movement is a pretty poor substitute.
And you know, people like r_a_tripp are so self-absorbed that they have NO idea about the world around them. For example, does r_a_tripp think that Linux increases the amount of freedom in the world because it is obtainable by corporations of every size... for free??? I would bet that he is the kind of person who hates corporations, and his political agenda is clear, and yet here he is, lobbying for giving corporatations and governments a "powerful, secure, etc etc" OS... for free! This certainly stems from a very basic semantical confusion - the various meanings of the word "free! Call freedom "personal liberty," and call things that are free and need not be paid for "costless" and things change. Consider this "equation":
"Free" = "Freedom"
Some people fall for that - as we see! But use my suggested terms:
"Costless" = "Personal Liberty"... and ALOT of the confusion evaporates!
The only "freedom" with which my computer can provide me, is the "free time" that comes with getting my job done earlier because my software is ergonomically and functionally well-designed. At a certain point, an expensive but powerful and efficient application is CHEAPER than a less-powerful and less-efficient app, if the time that I am using the app is worth money. (r_a_tripp might not think that I am free or want to be free, but *I* am more concerned about the fact that my TIME is not "free in the sense of being costless to clients".)
Let me add a few more things, as long as I am here. Certain things irritate me, as when people refer to Microsoft or Windows as "M$" or "Windoze" or any of a number of devices that show us how JUVENILE many of Microsoft's and Windows' critics can be. When I see such things, it usually becomes impossible to take the person seriously. I do not care about Bill Gates being "evil" or about Microsoft being "unethical" - until such time as I closely examine the personal and professional lives and mores of the people making the accusations. Any idea that Microsoft engaged or engages in "unethical" business practices while its competitors do NOT, will be dismissed out of hand unless real proof accompanies it; because as far as I can see, the difference is far more of the degree of success of their business tactics and strategies, as opposed to the losers being ethically superior. As for Microsoft being a "monopoly" then I will simply inform you that "monopoly" is far more of a POLITICAL concept than an ecomomic concept, and the "crime" of monopoly is a POLITICAL crime rather than real criminal behaviour. I will say that, because some people seem not to realize it. (And that is another matter of semantical confusion, as the "crime of monopoly" is rather different from, for example, the "crime of murder". Not all crimes are created equal! To think that all crimes are somehow related is to look at the meaning of the word "crime" far too narrowly.) And I will go further! There is a fairly common opinion amongst those who have looked into the matter, that the monopolies, granted by governments, for the power industry and telephone company etc, were BENEFICIAL for the growth of both and their ability to provide service for pretty nearly the whole population of the United States. Microsoft's "monopoly" did essentially the same thing! The ONLY reason that you and I can afford computers is that the Microsoft "monopoly" allowed the concentration of huge amounts of financial and intellectual capital on very specific technical problems. ALL components of a computer are mass produced, and to be economical, the numbers produced must be very very large indeed; it was this "monopoly" that allowed both the formation and growth of a market and the concentration of resources that made computers low-cost consumer goods. Whether or not this monopoly should continue is, of course, open to debate. And the question of whether or not there should be any government intervention in regard to this "monopoly" is yet another question. And there is no reason to think that anyone from the FOSS movement is particulary competent to answer either.
Some of you people have GOT to wake up.
A good point of view is the one taken by Bruno Coudoin and the other GCompris developers (http://gcompris.net).
GCompris is an edutainment program for younger kids. It is developed on Mandrake Linux as a primary platform. Bruno does a windows port of the code every year or so, but the windows binary is restricted to 12 boards out of about 60. To have all the boards on Windows, you need to pay a fee between $50 and 80. The Linux binaries (rpm and deb, ...) are free. The code, including windows code, remains free.
The fee for Windows binary is there for the hassle and extra work, encourages the use of Linux, and is perfectly in line with the GPL, since source code remains free.
I complete agree with Aaron. It’s a suicide to port open source to Windows.
But it’s a symptom of the defeat of Linux on desktop.
People know Linux don’t work on desktop and – obviously – don’t use: people are not stupid.
People go to a LUG or to a LinuxDay and see geeks use Microsoft products for a decent work and see others in Linux troubles.
Corporations on Linux desktop look at lack of usability, lack of drivers, lack of complete hardware support, lack of a complete range of good applications, hight TCO on desktop environment, and don’t move.
Linux OS on desktop lack of usability, GUIs, drivers, hardware support.
People enjoy with a cheap OS, but not with a cheap trash.
People do not have fear of new OS but need a working OS.
Linux and open source don’t need advertising: “free and cheap” is the best advertising if a stuff work.
People don’t need multiplatform applications but need good applications, usable applications, simple applications, applications with GUIs, not command line applications. People don’t need five or ten bad applications for the same work, need only one good.
OSS Developers waste their time working at the same applications: for example KOffice and Open Office - The Gimp.
Only if OSS developers join their efforts Linux OS (and open source) can survive. Attention: survive. Otherwise - at best – can remain a *NIX cheap server replacement.
Now Linux have 5%: people try to use “free and cheap” OS. But if Linux not work fall to 1-2%. And in the meantime Microsoft …………remember Netscape.
The killer application is usability. Usability first needs efforts of OSS developers community.
I agree with ur post, why not had spended such money in advertise Live-CDs of GNU/Linux instead of just a browser.
Name: whilo
Maybe you are right, maybe you are not... the big question ist, does it matter?
I mean opensource development has never been dependant on the market share, it has been dependant on its enthusiasts and on its great possibilities. Why do we care if windows users switch or not? Joining the competition means joining the game, means joining the rules, means giving up everything what opensource means to me. By the way we also copy a lot of features, if we always look at microsoft and apple, and therefore stick with their concept.
Sure it is good to have large companies and a large amount of users supporting us with money, but the critical point is, we do not depend on it!, do we? We are having fun and we build everything we need, like linus did and still does with the kernel mentioned on slashdot.Everything else will happen or it won't. If we build the applications and features, we need, we will build the applications and features everybody else (we are still humans aren't we?:-) ) needs. I think, let them port all the apps to windows, and let the users get familiar with the idea (not the applications) of opensource. Some will like it! If they use the software, vendors will come and try to make it usable and profitable for them, as they already do today (RedHat,SUSE,Novell...). They will try to get rid of microsoft by their own, because it's cheaper for them, and they will force their products on the market. No normal windows user would ever change to debian or gentoo in one step, it's too difficult! But in fact, that's not really important for opensource.
Another point is: Why do we want all the windows users? They feel happy, we feel happy, and they won't help us anyway. As mentioned above, they mostly don't care about computers, so they probably won't care about their opensource software either. They do not help us! If they know about opensource and the advantages from opensource applications, they will maybe be convinced by themselves with arguments from SUSE, Novell, Linspire, Xandros... And these companies already do so now. A friend of mine came to me 2 weeks ago with some windows spyware/virus problem and asked me about gnu/linux without me even mentioning it. Now her family decided to use it and they are simply happy! But they are not happy if we try to force them, that's not the opensource way and not a bit different from microsoft.
I agree that what you are saying is true, but only for a very small minority of computer users (I might even classify myself as one of them. I am a techie who has always wanted to switch to Linux-only, but have found it hard and still use Windows perhaps 70% of the time).
For the greater majority of computer users, they will just continue using what ever desktop environment they are used to and Windows is simply a household name - the desktop where the majority of games are released and majority of software can be found in some shape or form.
As for businesses, Windows probably has the advantage that it has a liability to its customers and developers. Granted, Microsoft are not so well known for always meeting those requests promptly, but people have the impression that Microsoft will always be a major player in the business and companies will invest in that. Another thing that I think scares a lot of businesses who run on tight profit margins is the word free and open-source, even if its not quite a justified worry.
Although I hate to admit it, sometimes it feels like Linux will always just be a small slice of the OS pie, which MS has almost complete control of, for the reason that it is always playing catch-up with the rest. That's become less of an issue now, fortunately, because of all the investment many companies have put into it (IBM, for example), as well as the community, but if the community hopes to lure many people over to Linux, they have to do a lot more than just be free and more secure... they need something more groundbreaking. Something new that will significantly attract people. The open source community needs to focus more.
Providing GPL software on Windows will not really make much of a dent to Microsoft's overall majority, but it probably does one thing, which is giving open source and Linux a good image in the publics eye.
It is often possible to see an argument from the other end and this is another example. The bulk of the Microsoft herd bought a PC with Windows on it, they did so because they were afraid of buying one with anything else. They often use the applications that were delivered on it. The surf with Internet Explorer read and download mail with Outlook Express and if they want another application they usually go to PC World and buy software in a box, on a disc and with a manual.
To a degree I would let them do so. I would not encourage then to download and deploy Firefox, the Gimp, Pegusus mail and Open Office. They are quite rightly scared of this free software. If they have any issues with IE, Outlook Express or Photoshop they can visit a huge corporate website or buy a physical manual from PC World.
They will usually see no compelling reason to migrate their OS to one other than Microsofts. Anyone who does see a compelling reason is a) probably already using Linux b) capable of re-deploying their OS c) the kind of personality that cares and is prepared to.
If the average Microsoft user begins moving away from MS because: a) Firefox is a far better browser with some excellent extensions and themes; b) OpenOffice is free and Office 2003 cost more that Windows; c) they use the Gimp and not some vast corporate bloat; then great.
Probably the first questions a prospective novice user would ask are: a) can I use my applications; b) can I still connect to the internet via my ISP; can I still download pictures from my camera. Now if this user has deployed Firefox, OpenOffice, Thuderbird and a raft of other open sourse freeware then the answer is probably yes to all these questions. Open Source software could well be a bridge to the greater adoption of an Open Source Desktop and not it's death knell.
It is much easier to convince people to try open source applications on Windows than it is to convince them to switch, operating system and everything, to something they are entirely unfamiliar with. All too many people still fail to realize that Linux is just as GUI-centric as Windows at this point. Give them an inch, they end up asking for more, from my experience.
Furthermore, I would be torn in ways that would make me uncomfortable if certain "staple" applications (e.g. OpenOffice, Gaim, Mozilla/*) were not crossplatform to Windows. How would I access my sxw files? How would I share logs? bookmark files? configurations? etc...
Yay! KDE on Windows! More KDE/GPL developers and no way to differenciate between KDE/Windows or KDE/Linux. Linux will have no visual uniqueness. But thats OK right?
Here is the Future:
1. KDE will be known as the Linux desktop port to Windows.
2. "Developers, developers, developers, developers" - Balmer. We will open a whole new world of cross platform open source development.
3. Once geeks on the Windows side start programming cross platform QT/KDE/GPL applications, everyone will benefit.
4. The average Windows users will not be running KDE. They will be running the default windows enviroment. The might be running commerical or foss QT/KDE applications.
5. More nerds (mainly IT) be exposed to freedom, and easy access to it. And they and corporate heads will see Linux as a low cost alternative.
6. Migration costs will lower as these IT geeks put KDE on these Windows machines. When they do a switch to Linux, they can have WINE handy to keep legacy appliations around, slowly terminating it's use.
7. KDE on windows will lower the cost of migration. Like Firefox, OOo, and all those other cross platform applications.
8. IBM, HP, Novell, Red Hat will be selling low cost solutions. Secure, fast, stable, near virus and malware free. Governments and corporations will be buying these solutions.
9. Microsoft might make its own set of KDE/QT applications in an effort to lock in Windows users. Some software companies may write only Windows dependent KDE applications. Really what is the difference anyway. Proprietary applications are proprietary applications. By then demand will make them port their applications.
10. In an event where customers demand Linux, Microsoft may have to migrate themselves. Microsoft has been talking about how Linux may fragmenting and it might start with them. Microsoft could create its own disfunctional Linux distribution. GPL compliant of course but with all the "embrace extend extinguish" inforced. FOSS wont be able to keep up. Corporations hate lock-in they wont buy it. But MS could sell it hard, some will buy, some wont. Desktop users wont have a choice.
11. MS will have to change its business model where the community and customers will be in control.
12. The bottom is money.
13. Money works both ways: Microsoft has the money to turn off FOSS through laws, patents and lawsuits. At the same time the the low cost of Linux, and many big corps selling it can kill microsoft.
14. KDE on Windows will open a bigger door for Linux. If KDE developers make it known. Plug Linux because it's where it all began.
15. We will just have to see how it all plays out.
I think that your theory is completely wrong. I appreciate people like you that creates Open Source software for everybody, but in my opinion a mentality like this slows down the the (already slow) process that will take Open Source to the victory against closed source.
The true battle today is not on the operating systems, but on the standard compatibility layers: this is why Microsoft launched the dotNet tecnology as an alternative to Java. Imagine this future scenario (hopefully as near as possible): a lot of very powerful Open Source applications (powerful like firefox in its field) are available on Windows platform: all people use those applications because they are free (free as no-cost), so people becomes dependent from those Open Source applications, not from expensive closed-source applications, and then people says: "hey, all the applications I need are also available under Linux, so I will switch to Linux and I will not have to pay 100 euros for the Windows license". This is the TRUE AND ONLY way to the victory, in my point of view.
If gtk or open step were available on windows, microsoft would be in a very less comfortable position today, and open source applications would have a greater opportunity to gain supporters.
And think about this (true) example: Microsoft promises in the future releases of dotNET, with an XML interface, the things that firefox can do today with the xul tecnology (example for firefox users at http://www.faser.net/mab/chrome/content/mab.xul ).
If xul will be made available to Internet Explorer with a plug-in, it will probably become the standard for this type of interfaces in web-sites, winning the battle with microsoft in this field, because a very important part of the next release of dotNET will become quite useless. *THIS* is the way. Think about it very carefully: if I manage to convince you of this, I would be very happy!!
Bye, and congratulations for your work in the Open Source community! :)
Has anyone though about the following:
When a manager decides to use proprietary software in his enterprise, he knows, he will get support (for money) in case of problems.
If he uses OpenSource SW, in case of problems, he gets the answer "oh, just write it in a forum, maybe someone is willing to fix it. Till then, your business is standing still."
What is again the answer of the community to this ?
- Thorsten Staerk
This blog is awesome! If you get a chance you may want to visit this design software site, it's pretty awesome too!
Hello, nice little blog you have here, if you'd like a peek at my Popup related site, feel free...if you likePopup stuff that is....
Hi, what a great page! Really enjoyed it, keep up the great work!
spy gadget toy
You have a nice blog here! I will be sure to book mark you.
I have a home business lead site. It pretty much covers home business lead related stuff. Check it out if you get time :-)
This blog is awesome! If you get a chance you may want to visit this real player download site, it's pretty awesome too!
Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places where
you can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a work at home job
site. It pretty much covers work at home job
related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
I just read this adware related post and would like to add it to my adware aurora website. Have a look, thanks.
Help! I am lost. I was searching for free software and somehow ended up here. How that happened I don't know, however I do like your Blog a lot. Would you mind if I add your Blog to my favorites page so others can visit?
You have a nice blog here. Did you know
there Is A 90% Chance That Your Computer Has AdWare Or Spyware On It Right NOW!
Spyware and Adware viruses have rapidly become the number one threat to your computer with over 90% of computers already infected. These include trojans, bugs, ad serving software, monitoring software and more.
I also have a adware free site-blog. It can help you find and get rid of spyware, adware plus other stuff pn your computer for good. Free downloads.
You should check it out if you get the time!
Great blog it really nice. To learn more about blogger visit
blog The best blog
Help! I am lost. I was searching for affiliate program and somehow ended up here. How that happened I don't know, however I do like your Blog a lot. Would you mind if I add your Blog to my favorites page so others can visit?
Not what I was searching for, but none the less and interesting blog here. Thanks for putting it up. I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back.
My site is a bit different, some think it's odd. I guess it's a matter how you look at it. I have a mens male enhancement reviews related site. Most of the articles are on mens male enhancement reviews.
Hello,
Looking at blogs and found yours...I like yours! My site about weight loss program for teens still does not have a blog. Thanks for some ideas
Hi everybody! If any of your bloggers are interested in P2P Software for free music and movie downloading, go see my P2P related site. The Top 12 P2P Softwares are right there
Hi i am totally blown away with the blogs people have created its so much fun to read alot of good info and you have also one of the best blogs !! Have some time check my link to !!Make money online
This is a excellent blog. Keep it going.
This may be of interest to you I have a free online dating service. It pretty much covers dating stuff.
I'll be sure to come back.
I really enjoyed all the great information on your blog.
It reall is about time I started my own. I will be linking
it from my website about make money at home free Would love to know what you think.
Good adware related post. I'm creating an lop com adware resource at this very moment; want to have a look?
Open Source Software sure is great.
Eaven if you're still hooked on M$ then you kan use great applikations like OOo and Mozilla.
Get people used to this, then it will be easier to move them to Lnx later!
Was at a security convent the other day. Nice to se that there is a larger focus on the open source community.
Novell was there, so I wasn't the only oss nerd.
I think that in time there will be less propriotary software lik Microsoft, and much more opensource software.
Unfortunately OSS projects are still pushed out in the cold by the larger firms.
But for how long?
I believe you have a point and your analysis of what MS could do seems to be pretty much in line with what this "company" has done so far to protect its hold on the market.
Yet I also believe that having access to Linux software on windows is a great opportunity to come to the idea to moving to oss.
As i am no technician I recently bought a PC and of course it was set up in another oss as the one you would prefer. For the moment, I believe that my package is quite competitive and I would not swith to LInux (still a bit too complexe for me) but I am quite confident than when this setup will become less pristine I will have absolutely no issue with transferring to Linux. I am already using cd bootable distros and I enjoy it (but unfortunetaly, they all seem to come without the drivers for my equipment: prnter and modem).
I would not presently move to LInux even if I did not the option of using oss on MS because it is still slightly above my technical grasp. But the fact that I keep as informed on Linux novelties is indicative of the fact that whenever I will feel confident enough and my configuration does not satisfy me any longer (and it is bound to considering that MS tend to regularly offer new setups, that look much nicer but would be unaffordable which is not the case for oss) I will make the switch. I believe that a lot of average end-users are of that mind too.
Therefore I would believe that being in the place is truly an excellent way to make sure people know of the option and one by one then group by group make the switch.
Of course your point about MS having a tendency of cornering their competition is very valid, but I believe that there are most certainly winning strategies that can break that âttern. for a start the oss community is very numerous end "scattered" that means that they are impossible to corner and as long as they manage to pass the bucket to the next developping generation they should manage to become more present. The fact that when possible freeware is the first choice of users on any plateform is somewhat indicative of the fact that people have no problem moving on to quality products and have no particular attachment to their OS but are more interested in what they can make with their PC.
Anything could happen, MS could go out of buisness.... anything... *.
Hi, I've been checking out sites and just thought I would stop for a minute to place a comment. There sure is a lot of blogs to look at to get some good ideas on . One site I was interested in was at http://www.studiotrafficautosurf.com but think I will continue researching. Thank you for your time. Have a great day :-)
Aaron, you are right. OOo, Firefox, Gimp, etc... allow me to use windows without having to give up on these useful programs (and I'm already looking forward to Scribus). As a person who tends to know his way around computers I stick with windows (though I've used Linux in the past and have even installed it for family members). The problem is that I have a great deal of expensive software that is only available for windows that I cannot go without. In this case wine is not yet good enough. If it was, I would switch in a heartbeat (just to be able to identify files easier by using emblems,and just maybe ... security). I guess what I am saying is that (to take your argument further) more developer effort should be put into wine to reverse the tables as it were. Personally, even if my favorite F/OSS programs were to stop releasing windows versions tomorrow (and wine still wasn't able to run my valuable software), I'd just set up linux in WMWare Player and continue 'running' the apps on windows.
Thanks for the great blog posting,
Pro-wine :)
Well Done,
I am what you called a Linux newbie,
one that is NOT computer trained,
one that just uses a computer to do work and to surf the net.
No, I do not know how to program and
no, I do not know how to DIY a computer.
somehow, I had managed to tried and successfuly use Linux as my primary home OS for a year now and is trying hard to keep it that way.
I am now a happy man.
BUT, when the next (new) computer comes along and
.. maybe the other OS that comes with it is a little more stable
.. maybe more opensource programs that I am now using is available on the other OSes.
.. maybe the hardware doesn't play nice with Linux
do you think people like me will still stay with Linux?
I HATE to say it but maybe I won't.
Most human beings are a little like me, pure lazy. Just give me an excuse and I will choose the easy way out.
I really hopes that KDE stays in Linux cause I really likes it
:-(
Got a couple of ideas based on what i saw on your blog. Thx.
Steve @
LifeIncome
Not to be trolling, but after I have seen the Windows Vista improvements (not just the UI, but the improvements to the entire OS) I am starting to think these points are moot.
KDE and applications come to windows and people that want to check it out can do so, but I think having Vista 64-bit and Monad and KDE for Windows and all the other Linux apps just makes all this stuff pointless.
With Vista you can have DHTML and Javascript gadgets or use Windows Presentation foundation which has 3D and 2D abilities with .Net 2.0 and the Windows Communications foundation and better security and stability and Vista Ultimate can also run unix applications built right in according to www.news.com.
So what exactly is the point to all this then?
It's basically a lost cause. Nobody will want to move for Desktop use and First Quarter 2007 Vista Server comes out based on the same kernel and code. What then?
- The freedom to request features directly, and pay for them to be implemented if you have the money
- The freedom to share the software with friends, family and colleagues legally
- The freedom to use the software as you want, without restrictions being imposed on you
- Freedom from spyware and malware in software large enough for unrelated programmers to have checked the source code
- The freedom, generally, to switch between applications, since (one would hope that) Free Software applications can support each other's formats, or even use the same formats, more easily
And of course in using Free Software you support the freedom for programmers to work on Free Software rather than proprietary software.
******************************
You can already do all of these
things on Free software on Windows
right now and well into the future of Windows Vista.
Free Software is good and it doesn't have to be only on Linux.
It can be on Windows too.
I was for Open Source Software long before Linux came out.
Now that Mac is on the Intel platform and so is Linux and you can buy a computer with linux or Mac, there is no monopoly period.
There are alternatives and you can get access to those alternatives easlily thus there is no Monopoly.
There is more marketshare with Windows, but like I said, no monopoly. If that is the case than Sony would have a monopoly on the Playstation 2 and that isn't true.
Linux is losing the battle in 2007 and people are wasting their time on this so called freedom.
Linux users am crying
>mentality like this slows down
>the the (already slow) process
>that will take Open Source to the >victory against closed source.
Why does Open source have to have a victory over closed source or vice-versa?
Why can't we live in a world were both exist?
I mean, some people on here are brain dead and just don't get it.
Open source is great for teaching, it's great to create something and make it better and it's good to try an idea out.
.PNG format was made on the internet and made by open source.
MAME is great open source and gets updated often, but it's available on tons of platforms.
Why can't we have both and what is wrong with having both?
Why create an enemy that doesn't exist only to ruin your productivity?
Don't sweat the small stuff, but
make an impact.
I disagree.
You're suggesting to take away the first step toward a change to GNU/Linux or *BSD.
1. change to FOSS apps
2. use a live-cd distro (ie: knoppix)
3. dual boot
4. switch to GNU/Linux or *BSD
Also, if I find suitable for my needs an OS that has some propietary components (ie: Mac OS X) but still want to use a group of tested, cross-platform and open source apps on it, didn't I've the right to use them?
Of course, everyone has the right to use their favorite FOSS in any platform they want (...or even port them). That's freedom of choice.
Just something I'd like to say, because (in my mind) a lot of people belong to a stereotype : Linux user/developper, OpenSource and Free Software addicts want to change the world, to konquer the earth by putting down Microsoft.
Could everybody use Free Software instead of proprietary system ?
Because it's Free and often more stable ?
It's not enough.
What IS Free Software ?
The emergence of Free Open Source Software
Windows, why not ?
The remaining real problems ?
What IS Free Software ?
Don't forget what is Free software, don't forget it's OPEN and everybody can use it as he wants when he respects the licenses.
Don't forget Microsoft also use Free Software in their products instead of developping already existant things.
I think the aim is NOT to replace every Microsoft solution, but to provide another way, to let the choice to anyone.
I think that, rather than thinking about the means to "kill bill", it would really be safer to work at Free Software useability, in order to provide solutions for (really) everybody).
And whatever you do, Microsoft and the others will always find a way to use it for their own.
The emergence of Free Open Source Software
Look at the FOSS popularity and reputation a few years ago.
These software were underground for a long time, used by a minority of developpers/advanced users.
Remember...
The known "standards" were mostly Microsoft products.
But now it's different, and why ?
Just because today, people know much more about it. Anybody has at least already heard about what is Free Software, what is Linux...
And this has been made possible by providing these softwares to everybody, to any system (and so to windows).
In a word, if windows users had not have the opportunity to use free softwares on their system, it would NOT be like that today.
Windows, why not ?
As someone said before,if people want to use windows, why not ?
Anyway, in the future, windows could become a Gnu system.
With hundreds of developpers, how can they do what the OpenSource community (with thousands of developpers around the world) does ?
The remaining real problems ?
When the choice is not up to custommers...
Fo example : specific software that only exist for Windows.
In my mind, to enable these software available for other systems than Windows, the only thing that can be done is to reassure developpers, to provide standards, to make software developpement simpler.
I'd really like to see software like Cubase, Protools [...] running Gnu/Linux.
--
Kereoz
Great job!
You've got the big hidden problem out in public.
There are some *limited* cures:
1. Wine
2. ReactOS (GPL embrace-and-extend Windows NT/2k/XP). Since ReactOS is GPL, the linux world will be helped if it contributes right away, when ReactOS is under development. A Linux layer can be added into the ReactOS kernel and you will have a totally interoperable solution. It should also integrate Java, KDE and GNOME. Something of a big grand-daddy Operating system. But of course, people from the Linux world need to join development there.
3. XPde / Equinox Desktop - this is very very crucial. However, there's a serious patent problem - with both ReactOS and XPde,Equinox. These have copied their UI. Which means M$ is going to do something legal if these start hurting their revenue. However, they are patent thieves themselves. See: http://www.25hoursaday.com/CsharpVsJava.html , http://www.javaworld.com/jw-11-2000/jw-1122-csharp1.html and from M$ itself: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa700844.aspx
4. .Net -> Mono (unfortunately M$-ized) -> Linux
Now, dotGNU. Put efforts behind dotGNU. That will pay big in the future. Let every project like Gnome, KDE, OO.o, etc. send a couple coders to dotGNU. .NET is M$'s answer to the 90's storm called Java. They've put big money on it. They will make a lot of apps on it. They also got hold of Novell - that is, Mono. Mono is now M$'s gateway to Linux.
5. Java going GPL will help. It will if you integrate GTK into Java. Java is now GPL. Means, FSF's "really free". Make a new stack - Java+GTK / Java+KDE.
6. Java guys are going to kill me for saying this, but, here it is:
Make the new Java+GTK / Java+KDE *Linux-native*, in short, FAST. Make a FASTJava Linux *fork* and call it by some trendy name. Java is the *one big guy* who can turn people's heads in large numbers. Just go check out the number of projects there are on java.net, the number of masterpieces there are on apache.org and the number of sourceforge.net projects in Java. Java is not well accepted mainly because on the desktop, for the average user, it "doesn't look good", it's slow, it eats memory. Change those three.
7. And for everyone's sake, somebody please start an organization for offering money for coding on Linux projects. Programmers from developing countries (read India, Brazil, Latin America, Mexico, Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia, Lanka.....) don't turn to Linux projects because of the "you can't earn money making software on Linux" idea. The moment KDE, GNOME, RedHat, the new GPLed Sun/Java start offering *payments* for GPL software, programmers with lesser "USD needs" will jump in.
We *must* give credit to Bill Gates for one thing: (he's got this one dead right) - he makes money out of overcharging, spreading OS enhancements over multiple versions et al, but, he allows an entire ecosystem of programmers, ISV's and corporatioons to grow around his core product. He leads an industry, not a company. He's not tried to make the core M$ Paint as good as Photoshop. He's not tried to put Zip/zlib into Windows till XP came about by which time, pretty much every shareware author had his own version of a Zip program which fetched him a decent income. Bill allows Robosoft, Business Objects, Borland, IBM, Adobe Acrobat et al, Macromedia Flash, Coldfusion, etc etc to make their own products. He tried eating up Real, but luckily for *him*, European courts ordered him to pay and so now, he's *not* an all-eating monster. He does eat a *lot* though (Office Suite, Database server, Web Server, Developer Tools, Programming Language, .Net Platform).
By contrast and unintentionally, Linux eats everything. Nobody gets money for coding nice apps. So only Redhat, Trolltech and a few others can stand up. Open source projects may not be partnering well with each other. RedHat, EnterpriseDB, TrollTech, Eclipse Foundation, Ruby, PHP etc. should work together.
At the same time, keep space for developers to make shareware code. Remember, in the crucial phase around 1994-1998, the flagbearers of the *huge* MS Windows Stack were, surprisingly, ISV's and shareware authors. This inspite of the fact that Win32 API is not the best documented thing around and it is closed source.
Finally the big one:
8. Now that XP is doing License checking via WGA, Windows is not that free anymore. It is "pirated", and the Login screen points out as much (my copy is genuine, for the record). Could the Open Source world now use FUD tactics saying that M$ has remote-control over your computer: "M$ does NOTHING bad. But *crackers* can do a lot of bad if they were to decide as much." "If an OS needs security patches every week how good is it? "
"XP has remote desktop, which means a virus writer could take control of your machine"
Now, you see, in 1998 Bill lectured Harvard MBA students saying that we'll first allow everyone to get stuck with our OS, wait till everyone's in the net and then start pulling the net out of the water. So, everyone pirates Windows. Its piracy all the way. The standard product key that works on all installations of *all* MS products sold before 2000 AD is 111-1111-1111-1111 or something like that. Now clearly, even in a court of law, this will be called "monopolistic practice".
And, as someone mentioned, you *dont* need to make desktop Linux powerful. Its simply a thin client used for very basic things.
For end-users, the *only* thing that matters is User Interface consistency - "Where did my 'Start' button go?"
The single biggest argument that end-users could buy, against M$ Windows, is that Linux source code is not in the hands of a few, but openly available to all. So, hacker groups can modify and patch it if problems arise.
That was my $0.02 with my little understanding of the software industry.
HTH,
Ivan Q.
I disagree. Getting people used to free software on Windows means that when the switch to Linux will be less painful. Besides, getting a wider user base for these applications will mean better application for those who use Linux. The open source Desktop is as strong as its applications. Getting more people to use them will make stronger applications.
The point of OSS is freedom of choice. Locking people into Linux would make it no better then MS.
I'm agree whith you. With open source we can't create many hdr amazing pictures like this.
Sorry, do you honestly expect these apps to be heavily taken up on the windows platform?
I still use windows boxes because the software on the win32 platform, especially with regard to OOo and other office apps, is far far more complete and integrated.
Furthermore, it follows some kind of standard which generally users are used to, and there are signficicantly less broken widget elements, being native win32, rather than forcing other widget kits to try and fit into win32, which never looks good.
If you seriously want people to consider the Open Source desktop, and not kill it, I'd make a much stronger recommendation:
Finish something first, before working hard on other things, like porting.
This blog is fantastic, is very interesting, I like the colors, are awesome. Keep it and show us more!!!! Do you wanto to see something more? Look... Glass Bongs and Bong featuring Herbal Smoke, water bongs, bongs online head shop, Marijuana Alternative,glass water bongs, Hashish, Ganja, homemade bongs, Smokeshop, cannibis, legal smoking alternatives for herbal highs and aphrodisia. http://www.headshopinternational.com
Online Credit History Web Credit Report Internet Credit Reports Internet Credit Report Free Credit Reporting Instant Credit Report Online Online Credit History Web Credit Report Internet Credit Reports Internet Credit Report Free Credit Reporting Instant Credit Report Online Credit History Online Free Credit History Full Credit Report Check Credit History Check Credit Rating All Credit Reports Credit Check Online Fix Credit Report 3 Credit Reports Get Credit Report Online Credit Check Trans Union Credit Report Credit Reports Online Online Credit Reports Credit Bureau Report Experian Credit Report Instant Credit Report Equifax Credit Report Consumer Credit Report Credit Report Score Free Credit Score Credit Report Online Online Credit Report Free Credit Reports Check Credit Free Credit Report Credit Repair Credit Reporting Credit Rating Credit Check Credit Reports Credit History Credit Score Credit Report
credit reports online internet credit reports online credit history ringtones ringtone ring-tones polyphonic ringtones mp3 ringtones alltel ringtones samsung ringtones nextel ringtones t-mobile ringtones download ringtones credit history online credit history online credit history online credit history online online credit history internet credit reports internet credit reports internet credit reports internet credit reports online credit history online credit history credit reports online credit reports online credit reports online credit reports online web credit report credit reports online web credit report web credit report web credit report web credit report free credit history instant credit report online free credit history free credit history free credit history free credit history check credit history check credit history check credit history check credit history check credit history instant credit report online instant credit report online
Ringtone Ringtones Verizon Ringtones WWE Ringtones Polyphonic Ringtones Rap Ringtones Hip Hop Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Alternative Ringtones Alternative Ringtones Alternative Ringtones Alternative Ringtones Alternative Ringtones 80s Ringtones 80s Ringtones 80s Ringtones 80s Ringtones 80s Ringtones Ringtone Ringtones Verizon Ringtones WWE Ringtones Polyphonic Ringtones Rap Ringtones Hip Hop Ringtones Ringtone Ringtones Verizon Ringtones WWE Ringtones At & T Ringtones At & T Ringtones At & T Ringtones At & T Ringtones At & T Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Sex And The City Ringtones Green Day Ringtones Green Day Ringtones Green Day Ringtones Green Day Ringtones Green Day Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones Vergin Mobile Ringtones
instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online instant credit report online
I think the outrageous price MS has put on Vista is going to push some people to think twice... the ones who buy new PCs won't but upgraders will.
Well, today, what you said has come true - more time for MS to improve their propriatary software. Just look at IE7 and Windows Vista (although for IE7, it is not much of an improvement, but it is still an improvement nonetheless).
So, they're doing it, and I can safely say, they never ceased on doing just that.
I just wished Safari 3 and Opera 9.5 will go the FLOSS way too, to strengthen the fight. Or better yet, Konqueror get ported. Mozilla FireFox "may" not survive for the next few years or so, unless Microsoft make a stupid and obvious mistake, all the judges in the whole world will go against them.
- http://gameshogun.ws
First, I'll say that I agree with the poster who mentioned the learning curve. I'm a Windows user, and was happy to read that KDE is getting ported, because this will allow me to experience it, and perhaps one day move to Linux. I don't like Microsoft much, but every time I've tried Linux it was a hassle, and I'm used to Windows. Even switching from XP to Vista feels painful for me. Because I have some interest in Linux (but not enough to endure the hassle), I'll be willing to check out KDE on Windows. It might also be a way to help others switch. Make KDE common on Windows, and people might not even know they're not running Windows when they use a Linux PC.
One point which bugged me is the comment about Windows users getting involved and giving back. IMO Linux can only succeed at the point when it's aimed squarely at people who will never give anything back, who want to just use a PC and don't care a bit about the underlying OS. As long Linux devs look at as users who don't contribute back to the OS as being somehow at fault, Linux will never cross the threshold of being a layperson's OS, and will never be able to take marketshare from Microsoft or even Apple.
What is SIP?
What's with all the weird posts?
Post a Comment