Open Source on Windows - Boon or Bane for Linux?

A not-so anonymous Anonymous Coward puts this tough issue up for discussion: "There seem some more determined efforts underway currently in some corners of the KDE project to port substantial parts of the software stack to the MS Windows platform. These efforts are now met by fierce resistance on the part of some of their core developers. Aaron J. Seigo summarizes his reasoning in his blog: 'If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows...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 ... Free Software desktop applications on Windows represent a no-win situation for Open Source, but Open Source desktops on Free Software operating systems do.'" (Read more below.)

"Does it hurt the 'Linux to the Desktops!' battle fanfare, if Linux apps and other OSS are ported on a large-scale to MS Windows, or will it rather have a 'pave the way' effect? Does it help to migrate enterprises and public sector units if users to Linux if users are already familiar with Firefox and OpenOffice.org from Windows, or does it take away the motivation to migrate at all? Is porting Unix desktop software counterproductive? Does it even help Microsoft and damage Windows users?"

Platform or application?

If KDE is an app then it's a win for MS.

If KDE is a platform then it's a win for FOSS.

When you're not the front-runner...

I'm not sure that 95% of OSS is a waste of time and energy. Even if it is, I waste a lot of time and energy cleaning up after Windows already, so it's not a real concern for me.

I do think this debate reeks of some exclusivity, however.

If you're the industry leader, you can afford to ignore different market segments - at least temporarily. OSS is still essentially second to Windows, at least in terms of mass-market adoption.

Also, ignoring a market out of concern for some sort of "ethic" in programming creates an air of "holier-than-thou" - something that many already sense from the open-source crowd. While it's not really the case, that doesn't erase the perception. To get someone to jump to your side they have to feel like they'll be "accepted"... just look at all the companies that choose to be Microsoft shops to placate investors. Exclusivity doesn't encourage that.

Cross-platformity means no harm

If lot of time and engergy is spent porting code, it means that code would be reviewed, cleaned up, and restructured to have layers of abstraction clearly defined.

If people would try out different compilers they would eliminate non-portable constructs.

BTW, just today I've found a bug in our (proprietary) code which show itself up in tests only using MSVC 6.0. With GCC on various platform and MSVC 7.1 it wasn't caught by tests, but potentially it can cause app to crash. And we have reports from our testers about misterious crashes.

So, putting effort into porting code to as many platforms as possible would undoubtely lead to better code.

It is also possible that there would came bunch of developers who know at least two operationg system s - Linux and Windows. Most messed up code is written by people who never programmed for more than one OS.

Re:Platform or application?

Either way it's a win for FOSS. When I moved from Windows 2000 to FreeBSD on my desktop (I never found a Linux distro I considered usable), I was more or less able to swap out the OS and still have exactly the same apps running on top of it (OpenOffice.org, Thunderbird, Opera, (g)Vim). I replaced WinAMP with XMMS. Cross platform software made ditching Windows a whole lot easier than it would have been. With an entirely cross-platform software stack the OS becomes the least important part of the system, and can be swapped out at will. This is one of Microsoft's biggest fears. It's something they are so afraid of that they killed Netscape to prevent it happening. It's the entire reason IE exists and why MS insists on adding as much proprietary technology to the WWW as they can.

Disclaimer: More recently, I have migrated to OS X as my primary platform, and I use very little cross platform software here since it rarely integrates well with the rest of the system or follows the HIGs. Windows and *NIX users are easier to please with cross platform software since programs that don't fully conform to the platform's UI guidelines are the norm.

Re:Platform or application?

I can see the point that open source applications make it easier to swap the underlying operating system. I was glad I used Netscape back in the dark days of Windows. When I switched to Linux, Mozilla read my bookmarks, address book and a LOT of archived email with no problem.

My concern with open source applications under Windows is the quality. From what I've seen, the open source applications were usually developed under Linux, then ported to Windows. Many times, the Windows port isn't close to the quality of the Linux version, probably because fewer people are developing and testing it. I can imagine Windows users saying, "If this is open source, I don't see what the big deal is."

So I think porting the many great open source applications to Windows could be a great introduction to open source, but only if the quality is maintained.

Firefox is currently ripping IE a new one, and that's a good thing. From what I've heard of the Windows version, it's as good as the Linux version. Open Office on Windows didn't seem nearly as good as the Linux version, but it still beats paying for MS Office, so it has a good following. But it doesn't adequately convey the positive experiences I've had with open source applications running under Linux.

Re:Platform or application?

Firefox is currently ripping IE a new one, and that's a good thing. From what I've heard of the Windows version, it's as good as the Linux version.

Here's the best praise I can give Firefox: I cannot tell which OS I'm using it on until I start downloading a file.

They did a terrific job.

Re:Platform or application?

That's not really much praise. If that were true, it would show that FF doesn't fit in with native programs. Fortunately, it's not really true - there are noticable visual differences between FF's various ports, especially on MacOS.

Re:Platform or application?

What is the goal of open source software? Is it to drag users away from proprietary solutions, or is there a grander purpose to the open source movement?

This is an honest line of questions, not a troll. Why do you release your code? What is your motivation? Do you hope to reap the rewards of many people's hard work, and contribute to projects that you use in order to keep things heading your way?

Has the OS movement's hatred for Microsoft overwhelmed their perceived goals?

Re:Platform or application?

Has the OS movement's hatred for Microsoft overwhelmed their perceived goals?

This is a good point. From my point of view, I'd like to see Microsoft dislodged as quickly as possible, as you can bet that they *will* try to crush OSS, or at least marginalise it to the point where it might as well not exist outside of a small circle of hobbyists. Also, technologies such as Palladium may even allow them to accomplish this goal.

Part of the "Microsoft hate" is because Microsoft threatens the very existence of OSS; "winning over" a decent section of the mindshare to OSS will help to prevent this.

The Gnu Manifesto

Just a reminder: Stallman came up with the GNU manifesto back at a time when MS was little more than a startup. He wasn't responding to Gates. He was responding to the proprietary principle that it's OK for me to hold your data hostage to my business model

Re:Platform or application?

If I had mod points, I'd bump this up as well. Creating software that is cross platform, especially the core libs, are a huge boost to the Open Software movement. Whether on Win, Mac, Linux, BSD.. doesn't matter. If you make the tools available to Windows, there's a good chance someone would look and say, "Hey, if we use this, we can broaden our marketshare by providing ports of our code to 3 other platforms without having to rewrite much." It takes time, but we've seen over the past 10 years how much of a difference it has made so far.

Microsoft doesn't need ammunition, and it doesn't need help to cause problems. They are far, far more influential and backporting to Win32 just gets them nice and irritated. For instance, "Hi, umm, Microsoft Support? Yeah, I'm trying to run this program called Gimp, and it seems to keep erroring out because of XYZ." Could you imagine flooding their phone lines with calls for OSS apps. It'd drive them bonkers.

So I say, keep it coming. Port everything, just make sure the Linux version still works since that's the one I'm going to use.

Re:Platform or application?

Free Software doesn't have a coherent set of goals. Ask any three Free Software hackers why they write Free Software and you are likely to get five answers. What Free Software has is an economic model that works.

Take Linux, for instance. What are the chances of an undergraduate student from Finland being allowed to hack on a commercial operating system? None, there is no chance that anyone would have give Linus a shot at meaningful work on a commercial operating system when he first started hacking Linux. Once Linus did write Linux what were the chances of Linux being able to compete with the various and sundry commercial operating systems if Linus charged people money to use it? No one would have paid money for early versions of Linux, and no one in their right mind would have even played with Linux had it not come complete with source code distributed under a permissive license.

Fast forward a few years and Linux is slowly crushing the life out of commercial operating systems, and it continues to do so with hackers that wouldn't have a prayer of getting a shot at meaningful work in the commercial software world. Marcelo Tosatti was maintaining the 2.4 kernel as an 18-year-old high-school student in Brasil. What are the chances of Sun or Microsoft giving that kid a job. Yet Marcelo has been making money writing Linux software since he was 13. He's currently employed by Cyclades. Linus, and most of the other kernel hackers, are also doing far better with Free Software than they would have been had they followed more "normal" career paths. You see, that's the little secret of Free Software, most of the folks writing Free Software get paid to do so. Those that don't get paid directly usually get indirect financial benefits, and they can at least use their Free Software success as a calling card.

The end result is software that is cheaper to write and maintain than conventional software written by folks that get paid to do what they would probably do for free.

The reason that Microsoft comes into the discussion has very little to do with the "goals" of Free Software and everything to do with the fact that Microsoft is doing everything in their power to maintain the status quo. Microsoft has built their business around an economic model that requires huge profit margins, and the Free Software business model is destroying those margins. Microsoft controls the computer market, and they are using their current market dominance to drive their incompatible file formats and incomprehensible protocols. Free Software hackers simply want their software to get used (for a variety of reasons, many of which are economic), and Microsoft stands in the way of this goal.

This isn't saying that there aren't some Linux hackers that don't *hate* Microsoft, but it's not the hate that is driving Free Software adoption, it's the economics.

Re:Platform or application?

The goal is twofold.

First is a social goal: to give people (including the software's own developers!) a choice so that they can choose to use free software instead of proprietary software, when they cannot afford proprietary software or when the proprietary vendor exercises too much control over the user's rights.

Second is a practical goal: to convince enough people, through the merits of the software and the developers who work on it, that investing their time and money in the development of free software is worthwhile and will provide a greater return to them than paying for proprietary software.

Neither of these goals is about control, though some confused people attempt to use the foundations of free software to further their personal goals of coercion.

What about freedom?

A more important issue is, what happened to freedom? If people want to port OSS to Windows, they should be able to. Otherwise, OSS isn't truly free. Free as in speech.

Device drivers

If KDE isn't compatible with my scanner [sane-project.org] than it's a win for Microsoft.

Currently, Microsoft has the advantage in driver support from the manufacturers of PC peripherals. Many manufacturers refuse to port their drivers to a Free operating system and refuse further to disclose specifications that free software developers would find useful in writing a driver.

Re:Device drivers

The last count I saw (on linux-kernel) showed that Linux supported more than twice as many devices as Win2k. Windows is ahead on supporting new hardware and way behind on supporting old hardware.

My scanner hasn't worked under windows since Windows 95/98 (the 95 driver kind of worked under 98, but locked up occasionally), but SANE supports it just fine under Linux; I see no reason to replace it since it's a quite nice true 600dpi flatbed. Indeed, I wound up with it because Windows stopped supporting it (my parents were forced to "upgrade" to a much inferior but newer model about 3 years ago).

Re:Platform or application?

When PCs start coming standard with multiple cores in the CPU and a gig or two of RAM, someone will develop Linux for Windows and a nice development environment. When you run the application on Windows, it will simply load Linux (or Linux will be loaded at startup) and run on top of this additional layer. Performance won't matter because there will be oodles to begin with. It won't matter what Microsoft as long as the top layer is consistent for developers.

The general rule has been that when computers double in speed, the applications they run triple the amount of resources used. WordPerfect 5.1 loaded instantaneously on a 286. OpenOffice Writer takes 10+ seconds to load on a typical modern machine. You won't see enough resources to run Linux as an application layer anytime soon, especially since hard drive throughput seems to be the big exception to Moore's Law.

Re:Platform or application?

The required underpinnings for this already exist.

Check out coLinux [colinux.org].

Installation is currently somewhat painful if you don't want to use a provided system image, but progress is definately being made.

Colinux + Xming [freedesktop.org] (or your favorite X server for win32) = Windows and Linux applications running seamlessly side by side, with very little performance loss compared to running Linux natively.

(Don't let the last update of May on the front page fool you, check the snapshots [colinux.org] for more recent updates, documentation also updated on the wiki [colinux.org] site more often than anywhere else.)

coLinux can be installed as a system service that starts at boot. Put Xming in startup also, and on the Linux side add whatever you want to startup to contact the Xming session and go.

There's no fundamental reason why someone couldn't make a nice package that sets everything up automatically, it's just that so far as I'm aware, nobody has yet done any targetted application setup this way that I am aware of.

Cheers,

Re:Platform or application?

Mozilla is an App. It runs on Windows. Is it a win for MS?

This is wrong logic. Here is what I think.
1. If the new applications are worse than MS, there isnt much value till they get better.
2. If the applications are better than MS, then people will move to OSS apps and ultimately may pave the way to move to linux

Just remember the following logic:
More options = good
Less options = bad

Isnt this how MS won from Apple and IBM to start with? The only way to win from MS is to give more freedom.
Yours truly,

Re:Platform or application?

This is alot like people who are switching to Mac because of the iPod. I know some people gave these types a hard time [slashdot.org], but I don't. What is happening is that people see the ease of use offered by iPod / iTunes and want more of it (that or they want to be trendy, but we'll assume the former). So, they get a Mac.

If KDE is ported to Windows, people will see that there are other options w/o leaving the comfort of the OS they learned first and start using other FOSS. Eventually, Microsoft is going to have so many security holes that people aren't going to trust it. Then they'll know where to go if they haven't already gone there.

I think most people feel "stuck" with Windows, rather than actually liking it. They are comfortable with the UI, though. The only way to change the power structure is to let them know there are other alternatives that are much better than Windows and still operate in very similar ways, thus allowing comfort and change.

Competition

If the applications people want are available on Windows, they will tend to stick with Windows

But competition is a good thing.

Similar software on Linux and Windows makes it easier to move users from Windows to Linux... it's the OpenOffice argument.

Re:Competition

Also if a lot of people start using openoffice and other open source software on windows MS loses a lot of money. Most of their profit comes from selling office and other addon software rather than OS itself. They would have to make their own stuff free or come up with very good software which people are willing to pay for. The only reason people pay so much for office and all is because they do not have or know about opensource which works on windows.

Re:Competition

Migration is only going to happen gradually as people get weaned of of win32 only applications one by one.

And don't forget about gaming. Until something major happens to bring Linux some big, big game support, you will have lots of people that will be right on the edge of switching or that will stick with dual-booting.

Re:Competition

But competition is a good thing.

Exactly. I use linux for my servers, because it's the best choice for what I want them to do. I use Windows for gaming, because it's the best choice for what I want to do.

I refer to myself as platform agnostic. I don't much care what I'm running as long as it gets the job done. Putting these apps on windows can increase the base of developers who contribute. It can expose more people to Free Software. It can force Microsoft to step up and provide a better OS because they want to keep their users. In the end the users win out because they have more choices and better offerings to choose from.

LK

nonsense

Seems to me, if a windows user who normally wouldn't consider a full switch to linux is able to try KDE applications on his machine without an OS change, and grows to like them, they'll be much more likely to consider linux as a viable alternative the next time they upgrade their machine.

Re:nonsense

No they won't.

A) they won't realize thier stuff is available and designed for Linux.

B) they wil be content to get some free (gratis) software and be able to easily install all sorts of junk.

C) when the software is not windows centric and so "non-intuitive", they will be turned off Free (libre) software.

It might seem contradictory but it is how people think. My parents have a linux desktop and they do not suffer from any of the spyware problems all thier friends do, but when the scanner stopped work they were quick to bitch how it was a Linux problem.

Now they were getting a message about no scanner detected. I advised them to check the connections but they claimed everything was fine. I go over and check it out and see the dc adapter is unplugged. If a device is not getting power it is not going to work.

Only if software is ported both ways.

The day I see Quickbooks(as one example) for Linux then that is the day I can kill Windows for good. People will NOT go to Linux unless Windows software makes the leap to that platform. Otherwise Joe User will not notice or care.

Wrong Argument

This is making the assumption that everyone goal is to move everyone to Linux. Maybe some people's goal is to have the best tools available to everyone, regardless of their platform. I don't see it as any sort of problem that people are downloading FireFox for Windows and OS X.

At the end of the day, its about everyone having the best computing experience possible, not whether they use Linux or not.

Re:Wrong Argument

Yeah, it gets real old hearing from the Linux = OSS crowd. Linux has its own very real problems which is one of the many reasons that people with the complete move to Linux is not for everyone. The real question for the developers is do they have the bandwidth and experience to support a Windows port.

Re:Wrong Argument

No idea why this "everyone must migrate to linux" thing is a stated goal of any CS professional. Linux is not the be-all-and-end-all of OS'es.

It excels in certain niches (server backends and embedded systems), and is woefully inadequate in others (just about anything that requires user interaction).

To me the underlying OS kernel should be irrelevant. I should be able to use KDE on an NT kernel, or a Window's desktop overtop of a linux kernel, etc..

The kernel is just one small piece of software, with a whole bunch of artificial value attached. In the end all it does is send bytes back and forth to the hardware. Only zealots and businessmen cheer for a particular kernel. IBM cheerleads for linux because they plan to make a buck out of it, but frankly, it accomplishes nothing that the NT kernel or BSDs couldn't do.

The applications are what actually does anything. Whether it's Apache or mysql or Tux Racer. Who really gives a shit about the OS? It's about as relevant as the brand of mouse you're using.

I look forward to the day that people dont list experience with "Linux, Windows, OS-X" on their resumes and instead just say "can use computer".

Re:Wrong Argument

you, as most of people posting here thus far, have missed the thesis of my blog entirely.

it's not about "Freeness politics", and it's not about open source (this isn't just about KDE) being on a closed source platform. nor is it about moving everyone to Linux or any other given OS.

the issue is creating long term viability for Open Source desktop software, which requires being able to develop and run that software, having a user base that large enough to be sustainable and satisfying that user base.

the whole point of the blog was that Windows, in specific, is not such a place in the mid-to-long term.

this has nothing to do with it being a closed source platform (after all, what's Solaris or AIX?) and everything to do with it being the platform of a company who competes very aggressively and effectively on their own platform.

to understand why that is the case, you may have to actually read the article ;-)

but those posting about "transitional apps" or "choice" or "stupid free software hippies" are talking about something almost completely different than what i wrote about.

Re:Wrong Argument

you, as most of people posting here thus far, have missed the thesis of my blog entirely.

If you want to open your source code and let others use it freely, then somebody is going to port it to Windows. Asking whether it helps or hurts Linux in particular or free software in general is moot.

Let's say it hurts free software. What is anybody going to do about it? Close the source? Prohibit its use in Windows? Either way, you'd "kill" free software as it exists today. It would be effectively the same as closed source software, except for a small club who doesn't run Windows (just as there's a small club for whom Windows is effectively "open source").

If you are required to kill yourself immediately if you are HIV positive, would you bother getting tested?

Re:Wrong Argument

You're absolutely right; the goal is not to force everybody onto GNU/Linux. Instead, a better goal would be to allow the user to use whatever platform they want.

There's a key area underlying that goal: adoption of open standards.

If there's an incredibly popular platform X whose applications use mostly open standards, then the interopability challenge is generally minimal to make a similar app on (or port to) another platform.

Consider this: if the most popular applications on Windows used open standards, then people who wanted to use Windows could do so; those who thought it sucked could move to another platform, be it Mac, Linux, or BSD, with minimal transfer costs. Why minimal transfer costs? Because their documents, music, and videos are in formats easily readable by a number of different applications. The openly-documented network protocols they would have used on one platform could be implemented just as well on the next. All you need is someone to write the application.

So this brings us back to the question that the article asked: is OSS on Windows good for Linux? Well:
* Open source software tends to favour open standards.
* If the OSS apps use them correctly, then an increase in the popularity of OSS apps on Windows increases the adoption of open standards on Windows.
* These open standards may well be in use already on other platforms. And if they're not, just go ahead and code them: no patents or NDAs are stopping you.
* The Windows user who uses OSS apps now has an easier time moving to another platform, should they wish.
* Everybody's happy, apart from proponents of Vendor lock-in.

So the answer is... yes.

Pave the way....

It definately will pave the way. Many people want to move off Windows but can't just make that huge leap all at once. Give us apps to help get the users ready for the move and then we can take care of the underlying OS when they are ready. I know 10 people that now use FireFox..none on Linux. They all use Windows and now see that good software can be free.

Yep, theres the rub with OSS

People let goofy ass politics in the way of practicality. There are a lot of great reasons to have OSS running under windows. Cygwin, mysql, X servers and clients..

The underlying OS should be less and less relevant as time goes on. It shouldn't matter whether you're running on Linux, Darwin, NT, BSD.. Well-defined and implemented standard APIs should let you easily recompile and run the same apps anywhere, without some bloated Java runtime or CLR in the way.

But no, we have petty "M$ is teh bad deval!" bullshit further fragmenting what is a relatively small talent pool to begin with. What goal are people working towards? If it's really as simpleminded as "destroy Windows", it'll never be reached.

So keep KDE "GPL OS only", and when the OS itself becomes irrelevant, so will all OS-specific apps.

It's hurting Linux, not OSS

By porting the OSS to MS Windows, people are using and getting used to OS Software in general. They only thing that it is hurting in the OSS movement is the Gnu/Linux operating system, if anything. Many people are used to using MS Windows as their operating system of choice due to the ease of use compared to Gnu/Linux (Mind you, it has been a few years since I tried a Linux instal, so I haven't tried the ones that came out this past year). But the good news is that people are looking outside of the proprietary software makers for their applications. That, at least, is a start. Besides, isn't locking in OS Apps to an OS OS no different than Microsoft locking people into using Windows for any of their apps?

Make it buggy as hell

for windows... keep it working nicely for Linux. People will switch to Linux because "look how crappily windows runs KDE".

Re:Make it buggy as hell

hey, don't bring me into this.

Ah, a hard one to answer...

For people who don't know anything about computers, switching to Linux will probably be as easy as switching from Windows 98 to Windows XP (though a lot of people think that switch is hard), once they get used to KDE, Firefox, Thunderbird and Open Office on their Windows machine (of course, someone has to put those programs there for them first!). Non-tech savvy people don't care about the operating system, they just want everything to stay the way they like it. That's why it's hard to convince Windows users to Linux.

However, people using Firefox and Open Office will switch to Linux faster, because it won't be all that different!

Once all of the applications are available on both operating systems, people will just choose the best operating system.
That would be... the most secure and stable one! Right?
Well, almost.
If we can get Linux as user friendly as windows (ah, we're almost there!) and make all applications available on both operating systems... They'll choose Linux.

I know my mom would... And if my mom would do that, everybody would! :-P

Re:Ah, a hard one to answer...

Trying to go for the people who don't know anything about computers probably isn't the best strategy. There is hardly anyone like that out there anymore

Haven't done any tech support or helpdesk work lately, have we? :)

Maybe you've been lucky enough to work somewhere where all the users are pretty savvy, but the clueless are still out there in droves.

I completely disagree.

Once people are used to apps, it doesn't matter what OS is underneath. Get people hooked on the OSS stack, and sooner or later, they'll realize that they could run the same great software without paying microsoft for the privledge.

Easier Transition

I would think that with software available for both Windows and Linux, it would make the transition easier for companies and individuals who are looking to migrate to open source.

FOSS a restrictive culture?

Since when is FOSS about *restrinting* choice? I though the reason that FOSS was superior was because the users has the source and the power to do with it what they wanted, if they want to port KDE widgets back to windows in a way that does not violate the licence ... more power to them.

It's people like this that get misquoted and give the FOSS community a bad name.

Familiar apps

You don't hear people complaining about Firefox running on Windows, do you?

Which is better: to say "if you move to Linux you can keep using Firefox" or "if you move to Linux you'll have to stop using IE"?

There is a much lower barrier to entry for Linux if users are already familiar with its apps.

Open source OS's need some 'killer feature'

In order for people to make the jump from one platform to another, the other platform has to have something that the current one lacks. not a 'killer app' but a 'killer feature.' There's very little available only for Mac OS X that's doesn't have a Windows port, or an app on Windows that does the same thing. However, Apple says that it's superior in it's performance, ease of use, and stability. That's what drives switchers to switch. Linux needs to offer something Windows doesn't, and just as importantly, GET THAT INFORMATION OUT THERE.

Makes Sense to Me

Isn't the whole point of computers to run applications? If so isn't the OS going to become less and less relevant as real standards start to emerge? The best marketing for the Open Source idea is a game or other very common application that people are used to paying for. Maybe they'll ask "I don't get it, why is this free and not accompanied by tons of syware?" Then, hopefully, the lightbulb turns on.

It can only be a good thing

Just a couple of years ago, the Linux environment was seen as purely a geeky fringe platform, where everything was completely different from the Windows world. That attitude is still prevalent, but it's fading, in large part because people on Windows machines are now getting to use some of the same applications that these Linux geeks have been using all this time.

More importantly, since these applications are now on Windows, and are therefore easily accessible to the masses, the media is starting to report on them, especially Firefox, and not just the geek journals. Invariably, when these things are reported on in the media, "open source," or at the very least "free," is mentioned. Often, Linux is mentioned as an aside in the same story.

All of this means positive free publicity for Linux and Open Source in general. People hear about this stuff, try it, find that they like it, and maybe ask their geeky neighbor down the street what the big deal is. All of this is positive stuff, and taking the attitude that we need to pigeonhole ourselves back into our one geeky platform, and exclude the rest of the software world, is counterproductive.

Transitional Apps

Some of these apps can be considered transitional apps while others need to be platform-centric. For instance, Office and Web Browser apps are TOTALLY transitional apps, making the environment friendly for those who are familiar with those apps on other platforms.

But other apps are unnecessary to port like KDE; no discernable advantage is gained by porting it to Windows because the vast majority of users only use about 5% of the operating systems functions thus something like KDE would have only a negligible effect. ASlso since this is a GUI app aimed at end users and not developers so much, this is your target audience and they would not really be switching from Windows for this.

MySQL and Apache are classic examples of transitional apps for developers and both of them are used from a command line or via a text based conf file so again, KDE would only have a negligible effect.

So far, I tend to agree with those developers that there is no point in porting it.

However...

The main obstacle to many people adopting Linux is both the lack of familiarity with the OS, but also (and more importantly) a lack of familiarity with the programs they will be using.

Until people adopt and know that they can functionally use Open-Source programs, they will likely never even consider moving to an open-source OS.

Yes, we end up giving microsoft help in the short term. But in the longer term, we let people know that they are no longer dependant on microsoft. More importantly, we get the feedback of designing for a much larger audience, the one we would (I assume) like to cater to in the longer term.

While the primary purpose of open-source is to liberate tools, a definite secondary purpose in my mind is to allow people to actually use them. I'm mostly for open-source because I think it's a real waste of resources to have software being reinvented from scratch over and over again.

What is your goal?

If you just want to provide people with what they want, you should go ahead and port these things to Windows. If you are on some crusade to force people to switch to open source, then go ahead and restrict where they can use their applications. Just be aware that it is somewhat hypocritical: denying someone the ability to run OSS on a non-open OS is essentially restricting their freedom. Especially when your only reason to do so is philosophical, and not technological.

What's the motivation NOT to migrate?

If you end up using OSS applications in your Windows machine, what's the incentive not to migrate to Linux? Sooner or later you'll have to upgrade or change the OS. At that point, you can pay Microsoft a tax, or just install Linux, which will be free (gratis and libre) and able to run all your apps. And then it will matter, because the issue won't be if you like one interface or another, but hard, cold cash.

It's "boiling the frog" in a good way

Count me in on anything that makes FOSS omnipresent in the popular mindscape.

There's more than just Windows on Windows

Microsoft makes (or tries to) lots of products. Any market share taken from them is a win. Firefox and OpenOffice.org on Windows are a win, as is Apache on Windows, J2EE on Windows, Perl on Windows, etc. etc. etc.

KDE != Killer App

"we eliminate the majority of the competitive advantage of Free Software desktops in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of consumers" KDE ain't no killer app - nothing you can do with it you can't do on Windows with a different set of software. Half Life 2 on Linux only, now that would have been a killer app. I'm with all those here who say that more cross-platform software can only help users migrate. Hell, when the software is no longer an obstacle, you might even get users migrating because of the choice of window managers. Shallow, but that's what got my attention!

So why did MS port Office to the Mac?

I leave it as an exercise to the student to answer the question, and see how it relates to porting KDE apps to Windows.

I agree OSS on Windows is bad.

Is it bad, that Open Office.org is available for Windows? Such a suite opens a customers eyes to the obvious benefits of free software, and impresses them where otherwise they wouldn't believe someone would do that much work would be done for free.

If you ask any Windows user why they don't run MacOS X, Linux or any other operating system, you'll get a reply that, at it's core, is an issue of incompatibility. "Linux doesn't have the games I play", "Linux doesn't have this program or that", "Apple is going out of business.". We might also get an occasional, "Linux is too hard", but what about MacOS X? Linux being hard is only an excuse, to avoid being proven that their application or an equivalent does run on Linux. Afterall, being difficult to use never stopped Microsoft from being successful, or maintaining their position in the market.

Often, I wish that OpenOffice wouldn't even try to be compatible with MS Office. I'm starting to get the reasonable replies, "Well, why should I try OpenOffice if it's compatible? I already bought MS Office or it came with my computer." We have to have some kind of strategic incompatibility. We need to be able to show a end-user, "Look, I can do this, and you can't." I'm not talking from a geek percpective either, an end-user, application level incompatibility. We need cool, useful programs that only run on free environments.

I myself was confronted with this very same problem. Just recently actually. I have been developing a general database/directory/xml program that I aim to GPL, supporting LDAP, SQL, NIS, xml, with migration functionality to and from each system... lots of stuff. I have much of it programmed in Java. Problem is, the program runs just fine on Windows. Runs slow on MacOS X, and might have problems on FreeBSD.

Just last night, I decided to abandon the Java code base, and start looking into GTK2.

It's been my experience that Java has only served as a migration tool from UNIX to Windows. If a project is being migrated to Java, it might be for the sake of having it run on a Windows environment. It's easy to port things to Java, and it's easy to program for Java rather than deal with any system specific API, such as going from Linux + GTK2 to Win32 natively.

A programming language, "write once run anywhere" is a great idea, if there is a rich diversity of environments. If the market is heavy with any single environment, a "write once run anywhere" only serves to benefit the gorilla.

I want to give people a reason to run Linux/FreeBSD or other like OSs to include MacOS X. I want to give people a reason to need to switch to Linux. As hard as this seems, Microsoft has proven it is the way to do it.

Disagree (sort of)

There is no way that I would be using Linux at all without OSS ports to windows. I still use Windows for my desktop, but I use *nix exclusively for my servers. If you can show that there are really cool apps to the windows users, and keep upgrading the quality development of the open source OS (not going to start a distro war), maybe they will switch. It will take time. Personally, my switching point may be the next MS upgrade cycle. Although grass roots is the starting point, the main gains are going to come from changes at the university and corporate level. Home users mainly use what they use at work/school.

WTF??

Wait...I seem to remember no small amount of condemnation directed towards Microsoft for trying to keep their customer base captive by making their technology interdependent...You need Outlook to use Exchange, you need Windows to use Outlook, etc. So what the hell is this crap about not wanting to port KDE to Windows because then people wouldn't have to run Linux? It seems like the same idiotic mentality.

Look, if you want people to run your software, MAKE GOOD SOFTWARE. Period. Granted, other things have to follow that, but it's a hell of a lot easier to get people to try something that works and stick with it (Firefox anyone?) than it is to force garbage down their throat. Especially without gigabucks to spend on advertising, against a company that spends petabucks on advertising.

And by the way, why is it still considered a viable option to get people to dive headfirst into OSS...platform, OS, GUI, apps, the whole lot at once? What's wrong with just giving them one part at a time? I would think that getting them accustomed to it without having to leave everything familiar and known to them behind at once would be a good thing, not a bad one.

Why is this even up for debate????

Open source is NOT about linux. I use linux 90% of the time and solaris 10% of the time. About 90% of the apps I use on Solaris are GNU. Solaris isn't free.

Free software is about free software, not linux. If someone wants to port software to any platform whatever I will support them fully. I use windows when I have to and the more free apps I can find the better. I want portablility, reliability and quality in my computers. Spreading/porting or developing OSS for windows is a win-win situation. M$ makes far more money from Office than from Windows, so it stands to reason that getting competition onto the windows desktop is good for OSS.

Microsoft gets valid competition and is forced to make a better product and hopefully lower their prices. Users get a choice. OSS gets more people paying attention. Companies save money. KDE gets more developers and experience with portability.

I really think anyone who wants to use OSS as a tool to beat up on M$ is missing the whole point of OSS to begin with. Sure, we can all rant and rave about how bad Billy is and gripe about the srongarm tactics of M$ but OSS is about codebase, community and progress, none of which give a rats ass about M$.

Microsoft Would Hate And Fear This

Making KDE as ubiquitous and multi-platform as possible (I would argue the same for Gnome, but that's not the question being faced here) would be a fantastic thing for the free software movement. This would not be a step away from Linux, but in fact a step toward Linux and free software. The typical user and average corporate organization has a hard time justifying or even seeing the need to take a desktop leap to Linux - KDE on Windows would provide a bridge to help assuage any fears of such a leap being a blind one.

This is something Microsoft feared with the old Netscape and Java - that these technologies would drain the moat surrounding the prison (Microsoft calls it a castle, but let's be honest and call it for what it really is) and make Windows disappear, relegating it to being just another toolset or API to play with.

If you were Microsoft - would you fear KDE coming to Windows or welcome it? I think Microsoft would fear it - in fact it would worry them deeply, because having KDE ported to Windows makes the Microsoft Windows Explorer desktop disappear. THAT is what most users think of when they use Windows - the desktop. Porting KDE to Windows enables it to operate as a pontoon bridge across the moat to help users find freedom from the Microsoft prison. They can still use all of their Windows programs, yet at the same time get used to a popular desktop used on Linux and BSD. The next step is to wean them from Office and Internet Explorer - a task easily accomplished with OpenOffice and Firefox. And let's not forget that WINE is coming along nicely, so it is conceivable that even certain Windows based applications can make the transition to Linux as well.

Imagine it this way: you're an enlightened IT guy trying to move your organization off Windows. The pointy-headed guys can't bring themselves to leave Microsoft - this product provides a solution to that problem. When KDE is deployed over Windows it will make the full Linux transition less jarring and scary to the guys with the MBA's that failed math class. Over time, users/organizations will become more accustomed to using KDE and when Microsoft rolls out License 8.5 i.e. another rent-increase, the organization will be a hairs breath away from being able to deploy Linux or BSD once and for all.

The wonderful justification for porting KDE to Windows is that... it will eventually make Windows go away rather than strengthen it. A beautiful thing in my book.

Sometimes to accomplish a goal a few minor compromises have to be made along the way, and this frankly is one of them (porting KDE to a closed operating system).

I deeply appreciate the ideological counter-argument against this port, but often principle can blind one from a much bigger picture - which is getting people away from the clutches of an illegal monopoly and leading them into a much better world of Free Software.

Experiences from another Open Source project

What we have seen with our own project, the Plone Content Management System [plone.org] is that people very often use Windows as their evaluation platform. Since it is so simple for them to download, double-click the installer and have a Plone site up and running in a few minutes, they actually find that Plone is a good alternative to whatever proprietary solution they are using or considering. They get hands-on experience without the hassle of setting up a separate server to test it.

The most common scenario we see is organizations that are evaluating or currently using MS Sharepoint, and they find Plone as a much more compelling and useful system for them, regardless of cost.

When they can then get rid of the Windows box they purchased to run the other system, and install Linux on it, and not have to reboot the server every night just to keep it stable - they couldn't be happier.

What's the problem?

While I agree with the sentiment that porting exclusively Linux apps to Windows may lessen the chances of someone switching from a MS platform to a Linux system, I feel that open source licensing, and efforts, do in fact work very well for Windows.

Examples? Sure... Off the top of my head, AutoHotKey [autohotkey.com] is one of the best pieces of software I've found for Windows, and it's entirely open source. It has a thriving user community, it beats its commercial rivals (Automate by Unisyn, for example) in almost every way, and does things that the its competitors can only dream of doing, in a timely and organized manner.

To me, it's proof that open source isn't a bad thing on Windows. Open source is simply a license (in a nutshell), and it should not be used to determine what's released on what platform IMHO. If you truly believe that software should be free, than why is it such a concern when it's ported to a MS OS?

I do agree that porting desktop managers and the like has the potential to decrease the amount of people switching exclusively to Linux, as you can now, for example, reap the benefits of KDE and similar apps (Cygwin anyone), without the need to completely redo your PC setup, but I don't think that open source ports are a bad thing overall.

And really... I think that this whole article is just to stir up the whole anti-MS rage among us Slashdot readers, since none of the debate here will make any difference.

The software's been developed, it's been released as open source, and anyone can port it to whatever platform they want to. No amount of logic, complaining, or rationale can or will change this. Perhaps this discussion should have taken place before the software was released, or the open source licenses were developed, but it wasn't, and so we are where we are.

Now if the discussion were about how to structure future licensing, and or development models, than I think it's a worthwhile endeavor, but why work ourselves up into a frenzy over the license being used as it was intended to be used? The software's free, and anyone can do what they want with it, provided they adhere to its terms, and they make their changes available to anyone who wants them.

Face it... The system's working as it was intended to. Next topic...

It's a Boon no matter what else

The biggest problem with the lay-person and OSS is that people simply don't believe it. It's "too good to be true" in the eyes of most and expect there to be a catch.

I can't tell you how many times someone was reluctant to try RedHat Linux simply because they thought it would be piracy. "But it's sold in a box as Fry's!" "Yeah so? You can also download it for free from their site and burn it to a CD yourself... some people just like to have the box, labelled CDs and a manual and that's what you're paying for..." They don't get it. My own brother protested that GPG and/or OpenOffice.org couldn't be used in a business setting because of licensing issues. I thought he was crazy but I checked it anyway... not issues I could tell.

People REALLY don't want to believe it's real because it flies in the face of what they are comfortable with -- software that costs them money.

So in that respect, OSS on Windows is a definite Win for Linux because the more people use OSS for Windows, the more the will later be inclined to using Linux since it will eventually run all of the software to which they are accustomed....just more stable, less vulnerable and a lot more cool.

Company A and City B might be adopting OSS into their systems but it works side-by-side with other "custom apps" that are deployed in various places. It's not at all unusual to have unusual software in a business setting...it's getting into the home and casual user that I think is the biggest blocker right now. I'm not sure what the state of "end-user Linux" is right now, but I'm guessing it's not where it should be just yet... could be wrong...

I'm sorry...

... But tough shit. I thought that we were supposed to be better than MicroSoft, because we don't lock our users onto a specific platform. I thought we were better because we are giving people utilities, power, and choice.

When did our goal of "Write better, more powerful, freely available software" become "Doing what we can to fuck MicroSoft"?

~D

Boon.

The vast majority of Windows apps are available only on Windows. You might be able to get some of them working under Linux if you invest in Crossover Office, WineX, etc., but that's a lot more work, not to mention somewhat iffy. So one way (some would say the only way) Windows is superior to Linux is in its ability to run Windows apps.

Losing your favourite apps is a big barrier to switching to Linux. But if people get used to using platform-independant applications, than the switch is a lot less painful.

For example, suppose Bob, a Windows user, uses his computer to run MS-Office, Outlook Express and Internet Explorer. Then for him to switch to Linux would require not only learning a new desktop but a new web browser, word processor and email client. For him, it's worth putting up with the worms and spyware (and paying for the associated removal software) just to avoid the hassle of making the switch.

If, on the other hand, he uses Open-Office, Thunderbird and Firefox, switching to Linux may well be worth it because he's familiar with those programs already and they are available under Linux.

Windows versions of Linux apps (FOSS or commercial) make OS compatibility less important and so reduce the cost of switching.

(As an aside, the original article gets a couple of things wrong. Firstly, Mr. Seigo says that few Windows users have decent development tools. If that's true, it's only because they don't want them. MS bends over backwards to provide development tools. They sell them (instead of giving them away) only because that allows competitors to exist and a wide variety of development tools means more developers. And that doesn't take into account all the FOSS tools that have been ported from *nix. Gcc does just fine compiling Windows code.

(Related to that, he also suggests that Microsoft could freeze out Firefox developers. This is highly unlikely because they can't do that without freezing out all third party developers. If they do that, they may as well just delete the Windows source code and fire all their programmers. The entire software industry will move to another platform, almost certainly Linux, and that's the end of the Windows hegemony.

(Microsoft has no choice but to tolerate FOSS applications on their platform because they need third-party developers. That's Windows' biggest selling point. Any dirty tricks to knock Firefox (or whatever) off of windows will work for maybe a week until someone compiles up a new version, but any commercial program that it breaks in the process will be out of commission for a lot longer. And each time Windows breaks an app, they remove one more reason to stick with it for someone.)

It's usually a good thing

If Firefox and OpenOffice were only availble on non-Windows platforms, almost no-one would ever switch to Linux, because everyone would be fully locked into IE-specific HTML and Word documents.

A better strategy is to get some Windows users to start using Firefox and OpenOffice --- much easier than forcing them to switch everything at once --- and because of network effects, that will lower everyone's cost of switching to Linux.

Open source apps on Windows *must* come first

Open source is a philosophy as much as it is a development methodology. The less people who are exposed to it, the less people who are comforatble with accepting open source solutions. A large number of PHBs are still very nervous towards open source, and to be honest, it's hard to blame them. In terms of high-quality GUI desktop application software, open source only has a few shining success stories. (Mozilla, OpenOffice, and sort of GIMP.)

Now, there very well could be some great Linux/KDE apps out there, but the fact is a vast majority of computer users never see nor use them. So, they turn to their commercial Windows alternatives instead, and the status quo is re-enforced.

Moving to Linux to get these apps is a bit like learning how to swim in the deep end of the pool. The OS is unfamiliar, the apps are unfamiliar, the "package management system" is completely new and different from Windows (and while efficient, is not very intuitive); in short, everything is unfamiliar. I can't think of any killer app that could offset all these disadvantages.

So while the KDE developers may *want* users to move to Linux for those 'killer apps', if no one even knows these killer apps exist, and moving takes a huge committment (and a decent amount of technical expertise), realistically, who will want to move?

In fact, having apps like Mozilla and OpenOffice work on Windows means that if people do choose Linux, they'll feel more at home on the OS with apps they're familiar with. Yes, yes, I know people would cite the whole OS/2 fiasco, but I don't think Windows compatibility killed them - it was their inability to differentiate themselves from Windows that did it. After all, if someone says "well then, why not just get Windows", then obviously OS/2 doesn't offer much above and beyond Windows, does it?

With Linux, it will need not only to be like Windows, but better than it, and not just in terms of security. It needs to be easier and more productive. I'm talking about things at the OS level, like system configuration and package management, not just at the application level. I think it's telling that the two main differentiating factors between Linux distros is their package management system and their system configuration tools. Hmmm... Maybe distros are trying to differentiate themselves because these things are the 'killer apps' of an OS?

But IMHO, these tools do not yet measure up to their Windows counterparts in terms of intuitiveness and simplicity. And that's the main thing that keeps me off Linux. Unfortunately, there's nothing to lead me to think this will be resolved on any distro soon. In the meantime, if app developers would like me to use their app, they should consider porting it. :-)

Battle lines not clearly drawn

As evidenced by the title of the article. Is this about the success of Linux-based operating systems, or is it about the success of Free Software/Open Source Software (FOSS)?

At the moment my preferred operating system is GNU/Linux. But I personally could care less about the ultimate success or failure of Linux and GNU per se. What I desire is the victory of FOSS over proprietary software. In fact I see this victory as inevitable. I support it with minor efforts when I can, although seeing the triumph of FOSS as inevitable means I do not feel the need to completely abandon or wage war on proprietary software at present.

The question of FOSS vs. proprietary software makes sense. The question of Windows vs. Linux makes sense. To me, the question of Windows vs. FOSS, posed by the article in the text, does not make that much sense. I desire FOSS to take over not because of anything specific I have against Windows, but because of what I have against proprietary software. If GNU/Linux died but FOSS prevailed through ReactOS (Open Source Windows NT/2000/XP clone, for those who haven't read the news lately), I would be content. (Although only because ReactOS will surely support a POSIX layer and/or Cygwin so I can get the UNIXy goodness I love as a geek.)

The apps I want can run pretty much on any operating system. From /bin/ls to Firefox to perl, I can pretty much make anything run on any hardware under any OS. (At least, as long as I have access to Cygwin. And Cygwin is proof-of-concept to show how these apps could be made to run on an OS that was neither UNIX nor Windows, if such a beast still existed any more.) Thus, the issue of which operating system will win out is not that big a deal to me any more as long as the OS is a free one! Yes, Windows has some design and security issues. But if the winning operating system were a free Windows (either through ReactOS or Microsoft actually releasing Windows as FOSS), it could be fixed by virtue of the fact that it would be free. (Yeah, I know; you and I would prefer to stick with UNIX for many reasons. After all, why reinvent the wheel? But that's a secondary concern to me.)

So, let's look at history for a minute. When Richard Stallman launched the GNU movement, there were no free operating systems for him to build on. (Barring ITS, which I'm not entirely sure was free, and which he recognized would never be acceptable to the general software using public.) So he chose a proprietary operating system that he thought would stand the greatest success and begin to replace it with free software, piece by piece. In the end he replaced almost every component with GNU utilities and, as we know, when development stalled on the GNU kernel somebody else who was interested stepped in and donated a Free UNIX kernel ... and the rest was history. Suddenly the world finally had a Free Operating system (and with three BSDs, AtheOS, FreeDOS, and a handful of other alternatives, the world now has many, many Free Operating systems in various states of viability).

Until such time as a completely Free operating system was available, the GNU project built, tested, and ran each GNU component on proprietary operating systems. In fact it was the attempt to keep such software portable to the vast incompatible variety of proprietary UNIX implementations that led to the development of GNU autoconfig, the program that writes those handy configure scripts some of us use every day.

The general philosophy was that the author or maintainer of a component would make a decent level of effort toward keeping a Free component running on reasonably recent proprietary operating systems, assisted by those who had a vested interest in doing so. If a particular developer thought AIX 3.2 was just too wonky to support, he'd leave it out of the supported systems list and make no effort on it. Anybody else could pick it up and run with it. If their changes to port said component to AIX 3.2 fit in well with the rest

Here's a question...

Firefox is used as an example of an app that shows the quality of FOSS. A possible carrot to get people thinking about using other FOSS software (including operating systems).

My question is, isn't Firefox's goal more about keeping the web alive as a standards-based system instead of an IE-specific system? The 'gee, maybe I should look at other FOSS apps' reaction just a happy side effect?

To me, Firefox gains undermine Windows dominance because Firefox is creating a bigger market for standards-based web sites. Yes, Firefox adds value to Windows, but it also adds value to other areas even more.

In a sense, Firefox is using a go-ish strategy. Let your enemy win some, but in doing so you (Firefox) win even more. The situation isn't strictly a win/lose scenario that is presented in the blog entry.

Those are my thoughts. Since I'm not following the Mozilla Foundation's strategy closely am I missing something important?

More the better, MS has that monopoly...

The reason most people don't switch from Windows isn't that they like Windows so much. I mean, how much of their OS are they really aware of, anyway? The start menu, maybe?

Changing to Linux isn't hard because they'd lose windows, it's hard because they'd lose all those apps that the can only run on windows.

Everything that people associate with their computer is an application. And 99% of their tasks involve these four "killer" apps:
1. Web browser
2. Instant messenger
3. Office/productivity software
4. Media player.

If great OSS versions of these four apps are available on Windows, and people start using them, then nothing will stop them from switching to Linux.

Mozilla/Firefox is the first step, and it's doing well.

Office/Productivity software is the next step, but I think that will be the biggest challege by far, considering how many people and businesses are stuck with proprietary MS Office documents. And contrary to claims otherwise, many many MS Word documents do not convert perfectly to Open Office.

Instant messenger is already set to go with GAIM, as soon as GAIM starts an awareness campaign, or even without, since there's really no learning curve for AIM users to switch to GAIM. People who switch to Linux won't notice they're using GAIM insteal of AIM.

Media player software is another doozy. There's no linux software out there right now that's as versatile and fully featured as Windows Media Player, and there are no Linux DVD players that match up to windows apps like PowerDVD.

Another alternative is, instead of moving OSS to Windows, move popular windows apps to Linux. This could work for some, like PowerDVD and RealPlayer.

But this would be hard too, since so many of the popular retail apps are from Microsoft. That's the essence of their monopoly... MS Office is a really good set of office tools, but it artificially props up Windows because the company that makes MS Office has a vested interest in keeping it on Windows. There will never be a fair debate within MS on whether it would be profitable for MS Office to be ported to Linux, because while it would be profitable for the MS Office team, it'd be even more unprofitably for the MS Windows team. And that's the essence of their monopoly, and why it would have been a good idea to split the Office and the Wnidows divisions of MS into separate companies.

this shows the distinct line between the two types

of open source advocates:
Free code is good for everybody camp
and the
we h473 M$ camp.