OSS on Windows the Next Big Thing? 351
Lam1969 writes "Linux geeks and Microsoft have similar interests, says Computerworld: They both are interested in seeing open-source software succeed. Linux geeks admit that the open source OS isn't necessarily a better platform for important applications, and Microsoft recognizes that many of its customers are using open-source applications, and doesn't want to alienate them." From the article: "Faced with the allure of inexpensive open-source applications among its core customer base of small to midsize businesses, Microsoft has toned down its rhetoric. 'It's a myth that open-source and Windows can't work together. Customers just aren't religious about these things,' said Ryan Gavin, a director of platform strategy for Microsoft."
MS Grasping for Straws (Score:4, Insightful)
So far today, I've used WinCVS, Notepad2, Firefox, PDFCreator, numerous Apache development tools and 7-zip all on Win XP. Looks like I'm well aware of the power of OSS on Windows. I'm not even talking about the tons of other apps I have on Windows that are OSS (Gimp, OpenOffice, Thunderbird, Gaim, Nvu, etc.).
If they're supporting it now, it's only because they're grasping at straws and reasons for people to continue to buy Windows instead of x86 OSX. "Look, if you buy Windows, you can go download The OpenCD [slashdot.org] and just go to town on free software." I know there's plenty of OSS going on for OSX and it's even got the bash kernel so you can compile pre-existing OSS apps that were written for it but man these Windows OSS programs are slick and super easy to install.
Saying that they're promoting it now will not make it the next big thing either. They'd have to open up some information about how to write apps on top of their OS or at least design some API's with the open source developer in mind. You know, if they made their platform a little less proprietary and gave the OSS developers a little more freedom, that would be a sign of OSS support.
Talk is cheap.
Perhaps we'll start to see some adolescent tendencies take hold in the open source community? Maybe the only reason OSS has been developed for Windows was to slap William Gates in the face? If so, it's now helping Microsoft and at least a few workers are promoting it.
Who would have thought (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm shocked. SHOCKED!
Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that that's out of the way... we might be able to be serious
It's nice to see Microsoft easing up a bit. I think we will find that this will be the only way to possibly ensure their existence. Embrace and extend, without the extinguish, anyone?
On the other hand, they've promised many things over the years. Is this just another promise?
Duh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, DUH! How many time did it take to understand that? It's not the code being open or closed, it's (mostly) not the fact if the software cost, or is it free as in beer. It's the software itself that matters.
Example, do you see designers complaining about photoshop? Or do you see system admins complaining about linux servers? Not really. And it's because of software that matters.
It seems completely upside down (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course people will run open source on Windows, but that will bring Microsoft no revenue and no lockin, since all open source products, almost by definition, cannot be locked down to a single platform. Even if the code can't be ported it'll be rewritten.
But I suspect the real reason for this statement is that corporate buyers are increasingly specifying an open source 'stack' as part of their purchasing reqirements. The operating system must be able to run (e.g.) the 'Apache stack' (whatever that means), so there is pressure coming from the market for such a statement.
Still, it's a half-assed approach that seems to be lacking in any kind of long-term strategy.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:4, Insightful)
BASH is a shell, not a kernel. Having it installed won't help you compile anything.
Re:It seems completely upside down (Score:3, Insightful)
If they had sold MSOffice at the Windows-version price, few would have bought. If they had sold it substantially lower, that would have motivated Windows users to look at Linux.
The Challenge For OSS On Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows + OSS is a good combination. The more people use OSS applications, the less tied they are to Microsoft and proprietary data formats. Advocates of OSS need to realize that many people will never switch their operating system to Linux or even OS X, and so trying to push Linux will meet much more resistance than saying "here, just install this application that's free and doesn't require you to change everything about how you use your computer."
The big challenge is making OSS apps better than their commercial counterparts. Some get this right - Audacity is a great app for sound editing that combines a relatively friendly UI with solid features. 7Zip is just as easy as WinZIP and less intrusive. But not all of them do - OpenOffice is great, but it's much slower than MS Office. Many OSS projects are much slower than normal Windows programs, and use toolkits like GTK which are nice for cross-platform development but look like canned ass on Windows. (And that's coming from someone who uses GTK all the time.)
Firefox got the balance of features and UI right - and that's why millions of people have Firefox as their first foray into the world of open source. The more people who see open source as a viable alternative, the more tractions it will get, and the more viable it will be for people to switch to Linux as their OS.
However, that's going to require OSS to start thinking about polish - making applications that Grandma can use. It's not impossible, but a lot of OSS projects need to concentrate on making applications that work well and look decent on Windows - even if we don't particularly care for the platform or the company that makes it.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been wishing and hoping for a long time that the OSS on windows movement would expand. I've also noticed a trend recently toward that very end. I'm holding my breath here.
Re:Heresy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Challenge For OSS On Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally don't think the OO.o speed is a problem. For me, buying MS Office is a problem because I don't think the lost seconds here and there waiting for OO.o don't add up to $300 in lost productivity. Maybe it does in a large business environment but for a small business, $300 per computer is far too great of an expense for me to justify.
Bingo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo. Right on.
What we are seeing now is the reality that the experts saw coming 6-7 years ago is finally seeping into mainstream. Shrinkwrap software only business is over. Win2k/XP is mostly just a driver layer and gaming bios these days. The OSS vendors like Novel/SuSE/RedHat have been screwing around to much, that's what's held Linux/OSS back the last few years. Now with Canonical/Ubuntu finally getting the obsticles out of the way (zero-fuss hardware compliance) things are finally picking up speed. I've even considerd going back to Non-Apple Hardware after 3 years of OS X just because of that. I definitely see Linux Desktops become mainstream real soon now.
Re:Who are these non-named "linux geeks" (Score:3, Insightful)
When enough people are using OSS on Windows it will be possible to switch to Linux on the desktop and most people will barely notice and won't have as many problems moving over. If the only closed source software you're using is Windows then you're gonna be wondering why you're paying for it. People pay for windows because it has the applications they're used to and it's preinstalled. If OSS applications reach enough usage the hardware vendors will be able to switch to Linux and lower prices without putting off customers. Once enough people are buying computers with Linux pre-installed other manufacturers will follow suit.
Lack of imagination or what? (Score:1, Insightful)
> something else?
If I can already hunt for my food with my stone ax, why would bother throw it away and get something else? Like, for instance, an iron one?
Bogus Statement (Score:3, Insightful)
OSS on windows is simply a way to survive being forced to use XP at work by corporate policy or critical applications (visio, WHY), or at home by games and educational software.
One hopes that if all applications are OSS or cross platform, one day we can pull the tablecloth from under the apps and go with Linux.
Re:OSS Developers against Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Shouldn't TRUE open source software allow you to port and run it on any OS?
Re:Heresy! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty much what I was thinking. That was some highly unusual spin. That entire comment seems to be inspired solely by the following bit from near the top of the article:
Clearly the submitter has a reading comprehension problem. What Bob Hecht says there absolutely is not the same thing as saying that Linux is not a superior platform. What he said is that the application "doesn't necessarily run better under Linux." He doesn't share why this is true; the application could have been targeted so much toward Windows that optimizing for Linux would be difficult.
The article itself is pure garbage:
More complexity? MORE COMPLEXITY? Windows is known for needless complexity. Maybe they mean more complexity of management... but then all that proves is that they need a talented editor over at computerworld. Not that this is news.
Besides, managing LAMP is getting easier all the time, and while the tools are still harder to use than the IIS MMC snap-in, they also work on a reliable basis. I've had the IIS management tools screw themselves up - or perhaps screw IIS up? - to the point where I had to reinstall the system in order to use them. You simply don't run into a situation like that on Linux. At worst you wipe out some directories and reinstall the software, and that's only if you're excessively confused.
Computerword == suck.
The Next Big Thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
I do all my PHP development on WinXP - I have Apache2 with PHP and MySQL running perfectly together on my box. I use firefox and thunderbird. I use Tortise CVS to check code into our Linux Server - and yeah - putty gives me a nice command line terminal if necessary - and I can copy files through samba connections.
Personally I believe that developing in a multi-OS environment (we have several developers on OS-X) helps make code tighter and gives extra sanity checks. If it works on my box, and the server, and another developers environment - then there is less likelyhood that the code will break because of forgotten dependencies.
I'm not sure this is the "Next Big Thing" my experience is that my setup is far from unique. Most of the shops I've worked in to (Telco, government contractors, private medical publisher, robotics firm,
-CF
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:3, Insightful)
As for competition from Macs. Maybe, but people still have their reasons to buy PCs. Granted, Macs are cheaper now, over what they used to be, OSX is nifty.
MS, I'm sure, has their reasons for opening some sort of diplomatic relations with OSS, but fear of collapse in anything resembling the near future isn't one of them.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux people want native stuff too. Not only do they want linux ports of software, but some people even rewrite apps so that they integrate with gnome or KDE better. xine/gxine for instance. In fact, most of the extra open source software out there is just duplicates of what we already had. Aside from one gnu app, I don't know of a replacement for say quicken. I don't see lots of open source games. (this argument is starting to become untrue.. in time.)
Making a native port of an open source program for Windows is a lot of work too. What is the difference?
OSX has quite a bit of open source software for it. Aside from obvious things like bash, tcsh, vim, xorg, apache httpd, php, perl, there are also things that don't come with it!
Apple can never win. Its either criticism for using open source or now they don't have enough. If they had used x11 for everything it would be "why not use linux instead of the copy". Nothing is stopping you from using "Mac OS" with x11... its called gnustep + windowmaker. Try it sometime. Its only about a decade out of date.. but its there. (pronounced: nextstep)
Linux users, do me a favor. Only speak of positives of your OS of choice. Don't sit there and trash every other OS out there. End users don't like "Windows is shitty" as a reason to switch. Why? Most of them think Windows is good enough. That's why they have 90% marketshare. Convince people Linux has new exciting features they can't live without. Play the game the way apple and microsoft do. The real reason you don't do that is because linux doesn't have much to offer over any other OS. Sure there are isolated cases but on a desktop there isn't a single reason to switch for most people. This holds true with mac os, bsd, and other systems as well. In the case of mac os, apple has iApps which appeal to a few people. That's why their marketshare is going up. They still don't have a silver bullet to get windows users to switch. Listen to what people say about mac os! Most complaints that are rational typically mention games. Does linux have lots of game ports? No. (work on that) Give and take constructive criticism. Improve the software. Work with others.
My personal vision is that someday operating systems will be free that work for everyone. I want us to move beyond 100 different choices and get to a few good ones that the poor and rich can use together. Most people I know that have heard of linux think it costs money. Why? They goto best buy and see "linux" for 80 dollars. The windows upgrade is 99 right next to it. What does that tell them? Then they go down the next isle and see box after box of window software. They think.. gee i can't get any software for this "linux" thing. They also may think wow.. nothing for macs either. I guess I have to use windows.
In order to resolve these problems, someone needs to put Linux cds at stores like AOL does. Free disks.. ubuntu or whatever needs to do this. Next, distros need to advertise that the box contains a browser, word processor, and anything else they may want. Perhaps an open source games collection might help too. Remember how you picked your first pc when you were clueless. In my case, I couldn't afford a mac so i got a packard bell because it had more games and other software.
It's what made me switch to Linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to use Windows (2000) just like most people. I programmed in Visual C++ and did a lot of audio work in Windows 3rd-party applications like SoundForge. I had installed RedHat 7 to check it out (partly because of some school-related reasons, wanting to understand some of this "Unix" stuff I'd read about in my operating systems classes). I found it cool, though it did take quite a lot of work to get it set up, especially since I was just learning it. I hated the RPM thing, and how I had to find dependancies manually. All in all it was a nice curiosity, but I kept using Windows. I did keep Linux around though, eventually upgrading to RedHat 9.
However, under Windows I was mostly using OSS programs like FireFox and Thunderbird, etc. I realized one day that in fact EVERYTHING I did on my computer, short of some audio applications, was in OSS programs, which were available just as easily under Linux. So I swtiched my email and web browsing over to Linux, and started programming in it.
This led to me spending a lot more time in Linux, and the more comfortable I got with it, the more I started to prefer it. I switched to Debian and enjoyed apt-get which solved the packaging problems (yes I know there are now solutions for RedHat too).. In short, I became a pretty hardcore Linux user, because I really started to like it more. These days, when I do have to use Windows, I still have FireFox and Cygwin installed and the only proprietary stuff I use is for my job, like Visual C++.
That's the thing -- i just don't NEED Windows. I don't need ANY proprietary stuff for my day to day computer usage. And OSS on Windows is what helped me realize that..
In short, I think probably the biggest advantage of opening the source code of an application is that, given sufficient community interest, it will likely be ported to other platforms. The more platforms that an application supports, the easier it is for the users to ween their dependancy on a specific OS. In this day and age, when there are multiple operating systems that provide essentially the same functionality (arguable some better or worse than others), users shouldn't _depend_ on any particular one of them to be able to work with their data. With so many API libraries available for developing cross-platform software, any barriers thrown up to stop applications from being ported are, essentially, artificial.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I shouldn't say "silly little utility" - developers have a right to ask whatever they want for their stuff, and it's their own hard work that produced it. But as a user, it's sure nice to work on Linux without all those toll booths everywhere. You just say "apt-get install" or "emerge" or whatever and with any luck, you're done.
Re:Bingo. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:3, Insightful)
Two points:
1. There is no such thing as "out of the box" with Linux. Every distro is different and comes with different tools. Most of the tools are open source, so if you know what you're looking for you can get it for gratis from any number of well-known (within the industry/community) sites. Windows isn't much different. It comes with a standard set of user tools/applets, and not a whole lot for developing and administering systems. But if you're know what you're looking for, you can usually get it for gratis from Microsoft, or possibly another community/industry site. In either case, if you're not that familiar with the community then you're going to have trouble finding and getting what you need. I do believe that the fact that most Linux users tend to be more technically proficient than Windows users does have a lot to do with the difficulty of finding what you need. With Linux you have a smaller community of more highly knowledgable users, whereas with Windows you have a smaller community of more highly knowledgable users surrounded by millions of clueless brain-turds. 2. If you want to wipe a hard disk with Windows, it's not that hard. There are a number of free utilities that will do the trick. I recently needed similar functionality and ended up using a free BartPE plugin called COPYWIPE to do it. The biggest problem that you have with wiping utilities that run in Windows is that Windows typically runs from a computer with a single partition that is actively in use by the system. With Linux you typically have multiple partitions and disks, so wiping one while your OS is running from another isn't such a big issue. But there are plenty of free Windows utilities if you know where to look (like free disk imaging software, free partition resizing software, etc). 3. It is absolutely true that there are more $20-type of utilities for Windows that for Linux, but I think that has more to do with the mentality of the developers than the OS. If you're using Linux, you are benefitting from all of that free software, so it is easy to see the value of contributing to the community. If you are using Windows you are seeling the value of selling software, so when you write that cool utility you will be more inclined to make a little money on the side. Besides, have you ever tried to actually sell Linux-based software? Assuming that you don't have to deal with any GPL issues, you still have to contend with potential customers who are resistant to paying for software. So if you want to make money from selling a cool app odds are you will write it for Windows (which has the largest potential customer base anyways. But I think that will slowly change as more people become accustomed to using OSS on Windows.
Re:MS Grasping for Straws (Score:2, Insightful)
This is hardly a Windows-specific problem. Nobody complains about OS X being "OSS unfriendly" just because XCode is proprietary. Nobody complains about Linux being "OSS unfriendly" because Intel's C++ compiler isn't a drop-in replacement for gcc. If you want cross-platform, the open-source tools (GCC, Eclipse, etc) run everywhere.
Use Visual Studio for Windows-specific projects, just like Apple fans use XCode for Mac-specific projects. Use the GNU toolchain where portability counts. It's only difficult if you insist on making it difficult for yourself.
Of course, there is gcc also for windows (Cygwin), but Cygwin is sometimes a pain in the *ss to install and configure correctly
So I keep hearing. I still haven't managed to figure out how. I've never had any difficulty. And if Cygwin doesn't do it for you, there's the MinGW/MSYS alternative which some people prefer.
and even if you actually have it installed correcly, it just doesn't behave *the same way* as those same GNU tools do under UNIX.
It's practically indistinguishable. In my experience, any code that has problems compiling under Cygwin is not properly cross-platform. Don't go mistaking Linux for *NIX. Your "UNIX" program might be fine in Linux, and possibly even in FreeBSD if you were careful, but does it compile cleanly in NetBSD? Solaris? AIX? OS X? Not if it makes any of the trivial mistakes Linux coders often make, like assuming that libc is glibc, or that python is in
Portable code runs fine in Cygwin. It's non-portable code that has problems. And it's not Cygwin's fault if your code isn't portable. Don't go confusing "Linux-friendly" with "OSS-friendly", because they aren't the same thing, and it's not even clear that going out of one's way to clone non-standard behaviours of Linux is at all desirable.