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?

[alext (29323)]

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

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

Re:Platform or application?

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

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.

What about freedom?

[bonch (38532)]

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

[tepples (727027)]

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:Platform or application?

[by Anonymous Coward]

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?

[ssj_195 (827847)]

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.

Re:Platform or application?

[Zorilla (791636)]

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.

Competition

[EnronHaliburton2004 (815366)]

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

[gollum123 (810489)]

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

[PhoenixFlare (319467)]

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.

nonsense

[epohs (775630)]

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.

Only if software is ported both ways.

[nlinecomputers (602059)]

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

[SlamMan (221834)]

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

[jj_johny (626460)]

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

[stratjakt (596332)]

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".

Pave the way....

[NetJunkie (56134)]

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

[stratjakt (596332)]

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

[Ironsides (739422)]

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

[ylikone (589264)]

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

I completely disagree.

[gnuadam (612852)]

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.

FOSS a restrictive culture?

[_LORAX_ (4790)]

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

[deepstephen (149398)]

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.

It can only be a good thing

[eln (21727)]

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.

However...

[francisew (611090)]

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's the motivation NOT to migrate?

[Walkiry (698192)]

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.