The Future of Closed Source Software and Linux 566
slashy writes "What is the future of closed source software and Linux? OSWeekly.com delves into the subject and emerges with a possible answer. Quote: "I have been struggling with one major problem lately with the Linux operating system and that problem is the amazing lack of new and exciting software. It's frustrating because by the time said software does finally make its way down to the Linux user, the Windows crowd has been using it for nearly a year or longer.
Perhaps some of this is because there does not appear to be a clear, simple to follow outline cooperative for companies to design for the open source operating system. Arguably this is because of the perceived need to keep things "open," however, I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the closed source community. I am a firm believer that both parties could learn a lot from each other; unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon."
Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Article Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
I was kind of hoping for something a bit broader than one example heaped with a few generalities...
Not entirely true, but .... (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe just the opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe it is time for the closed source community to grow up and find some common ground with Linux.
Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
When there is a gap for new programs, they will be created. When someone needs to get a task done and there isn't a tool, he will scratch that itch - eventually, if enough people have the itch it becomes widespread. I also have no idea where he is coming from about this release gap between windows and linux, unless we're talking about games which is a whole other can of worms.
And finally, has he checked out XGL/compiz? That is some bleeding edge technology that is unmatched currently and definitely some cool stuff to play with. Basically I don't understand what this guy's beef is and how it relates to closed/open source - GNU/linux has all the software it needs being developed and the few closed source vendors who don't want to play nice and port are not the fault of the open vision.
Of course, I am basing this entirely on the summary so who knows. *shrug*
Excitement = Bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
I almost feel like Obviousman here. Linux can't accomodate closed-source software easily BECAUSE IT'S CLOSED AND THUS IMPOSSIBLE TO INTEGRATE SEAMLESSLY INTO OTHER APPLICATIONS. Linux has no obligations whatsoever when it comes to compatibility -- they've published all their docs, spotty though they may be, and they use standards. Microsoft, Adobe, and now-defunct Macromedia have done neither, with some exceptions such as SWF and PDF formats.
If this guy wants more integration, he should stop bitching at Linux, which has an open kernel API; he should stop bitching at GNU, which is completely and totally open. He should be directing his trolling at Microsoft, who has made no efforts to make their software work on top of Linux kernels.
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
It is just like UNIX in the 80s and 90s (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
There will come a time when proprietary software will be routinely written for Linux, but I would prefer it didn't happen too soon. At the moment, the consequence of proprietary software developers ignoring Linux (and other FOSS OSs) is that open source developers are having to create the entire software stack.
The FOSS community won't just be developing an OS, but office apps, graphics tools, audio, video, CAD etc. It makes the task of creating a viable alternative to Microsoft harder, true, but the end result will be that an entire suite of FOSS software will exist for the platform by the time commercial interests start noticing the market.
At the moment, the lack of pressure from commercial interests is allowing the FOSS solutions to develop at their own pace, so the longer the proprietary companies keep shooting themselves in the foot by ignoring Linux, the better. Given time, any company wishing to compete in the Linux market will have to produce software which is significantly better than the established FOSS tools, and that has to be good for us computer users.
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
With the exception of servers and anti-virus software, Linux is far, far away from being a serious threat to Windows (and Macs.)
It's not all bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Proprietary software, as long as it doesn't make the system less free, is not necessarily bad.
For example a proprietary document system that uses open formats and has open APIs does very little to harm the user and potentially fills a niche that cannot be served by free software very well (eg handles certain legal compliance issues, which requires expensive insurance and research).
As long as you *could* write your own software to replace bits of the system, or interoperate with the system, then you dont necessarily have to for the benefit to be very real indeed.
Nothing to see, pass on either side (Score:5, Insightful)
As has been stated, this article is nothing more than "I want outlook on Linux".
If you take a good look at real world closed source software (ie sold by companies not based in Redmond, WA) you will find most of the top app providers already selling Linux versions of their products. For many, this was a no brainer as they already had Unix (of various flavours) versions of their key products.
Then you get companies like IBM who are (IMHO) actually looking at replacing windows with Linux as the key dev platform. For example, if you look as some of the WebSphere range of products. Until fairly recently, there was always a need for at leat one windows system to act as the dev host. Now, with the switch to Eclipse based dev tools they can also use linux instead of Windows in this key area. Ok, they are not betting the farm on linux succeeding in this area but with each release the need to use windows grows less and less.
Finally,
We don't need Outlook on Linux. What we need is a decent email/groupware client that will interact seamlessly with MS Exchange that provides all the functionality of Outlook but without the underlying problems that it has.
What bugs me about Office 2003 is that outlook had lost its ability to export the account settings. What you have to use is the office exporter which produces a file which is a horrible missmash of Binary & XML (no the binary is not wrapped in XML) that only the office imported can read. I know this is part of the M$ lock in policy but previous versions of lookout so that other email clients can read them easily. So now, you have to import them manually. I get really annoyed with M$ when the go on about their interoperability policy. It if nothing more than pure FUD.
Re:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahhhhhhhh, but he's not really talking about software, is he? He's talking about Microsoftcompatibleware and Buzzware.
KFG
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:5, Insightful)
"amazing lack of new and exciting software" (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, sire, I shalt bow before thee. Am I alone to think such opinions come from the usual thinking-to-be professionals who don't actually use those "exciting" software but find it fashionable to talk about having it and using it and knowing it, etc. ? What is "exciting software" anyway ? There are of course applications which have some purpose and are designed nicer, slicker than the others, some even are more usable than others, some are more professional, etc. Still, "new and exciting software" is a so broad and bland formulation that it makes the whole opinion unworthy of any serious consideration.
Apart from the above, OSes other than Windows happen to have very many good applications for a wide variety of goals (and yes, the job and the goal is what defines what software to use, we don't just use a software because it's "exciting" and "new", unless the special family of what I usually call toy apps), and surprisingly (well, not for us) they are usually developed in a much faster pace than in the case of some other OS. Also, needs of the crowds and recognition of some missing niche software (and the implementation of it) usually happens more frequently and faster in the non-Windows world.
If just talking about the number of maintained and developed apps, and the number of areas these applications target, then Linux is better performing in some of these areas than any other OS out there. There are probably a lot of people who at least once thought how nice would it be if this app existed also on Windows, and guess what, these wishes come true more frequently than not. In my world this is one of the biggest strenghts of FOSS development which also makes such developers much more evolved in my book, since they are mostly developing to be platform-agnostic.
If I were wearing my troll-boots, I'd tell you where to go with those new and exciting software you so hardly seek, but I can't find them so there you go, all I can advise you now is to take a much broader point of view upon the Linux and FOSS world, formulate goals and try to find existing software to achieve your goals, and after experimentation you still feel the lack of those exciting pieces of software, than all you can do is search for other pastures where exciting-software-trees grow by the dozen.
What the hell is he talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ask Microsoft why they lock down their products the way they do, it's not really the OSS community's fault.
the fact remains that I am tired of having to boot back into my Windows install to do some pretty basic stuff. [...] There is one application that cannot be run at all because of its dependency on Internet Explorer - Outlook 2003.
Well if you're sooo dependent on Microsoft products, and you admit it, then you should now understand WHY OSS is so important. We're seeking to empower the individuals, who in today's setup are at the mercy of software companies. And your experience of Linux has only highlighted even more this need to have an open alternative to Windows and its flagship "products".
If you want to exclusively use Linux, then the first thing you need to learn to do is to COMPROMISE. Understand that you'll be better off not using MSN messenger or Outlook, and start looking at the alternatives. We're not here to emulate windows, we're here to offer a different desktop experience.
As for the lack of new interesting things in the OSS world, well I'll just say that you haven't been looking hard enough. Not all the interesting stuff comes in a .deb or .rpm ...
What's to follow? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure why companies would need any special outline for Linux. That it's open-source is irrelevant for most software, really. If you're making a kernel module the issue comes into play, but very few things other than actual hardware devices need kernel modules. If you include GPL'd libraries in your software there's a licensing issue, but then if you include any libraries licensed from third parties you've got a licensing issue when you start distributing them and you're going to have to do some negotiating and cough up some money. I don't think there's any GPL'd libraries that apps on Linux have to use, so any app should be able to avoid the issue if they want to. The only thing left is integration into the system:
- Installation of the software. Not much to say here. A simple tar file that can be unpacked and copied under
/usr/local, or that's got an installation script that does the work, should work on any Unix out there including Linux. At worst you've got to add a library directory to /etc/ld.so.conf, but usually a small wrapper script that sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately obviates the need for that. If you want to use the native packaging system you've got to build binary packages, but that's usually straightforward and covered in the documentation for each distro.
- Integration into the system startup scripts. There's a couple of different layouts for the startup script directories, and each distro has it's own little customizations you have to accomodate for perfect integration (things like how the script should check for the software already being started during runlevel changes, stuff like that). But how much software really needs to be set running during startup? Most doesn't, but the few packages that do have some complexity on their hands.
- Desktop integration. This isn't a Linux issue, it's a Gnome and KDE issue (those being the two major ones these days). Their Web sites have guides on how to do this right IIRC, and if you follow them it should work for that desktop on any platform the desktop runs on. Linux is simply another platform.
- Integration with the desktop. Um, this is Unix. There is no single desktop. Any user on the system can run any desktop, and in fact run different desktops at different times. Best bet is to follow the guides for integration, check for each desktop and integrate with all that're installed, and provide a single executable (or a wrapper script) that a user can run from the command line that'll start your app. That last insures users can use your app without any desktop integration at all by simply manually creating a launcher for it where they want one.
- Copy protection. This can be an issue. The world outside Windows is remarkably hostile to the sorts of copy-protection schemes seen in Windows software, and Linux isn't unique in this. License key servers can be used, but they tend to cause more headaches for your customers (even when working properly) than for pirates. Hardware keying is a pain since Unixes tend to hide the hardware so well the detailed information isn't readily available (you can get it, but it takes a fair amount of hackery).
Have I missed anything? I don't think I have, and aside from the issue of copy protection none of the above needs any special communication or coordination between the software vendor and the Linux community or distributions to deal with beyond reading the relevant docs. Maybe it's that the vendors have a problem believing it can be that simple after all these years of dealing with the complexities of Windows?Re:what closes source has taught me (Score:1, Insightful)
Tell me about it (Score:3, Insightful)
It has really been a challenge for me, not so much due to anything wrong with Ubuntu, but because the "aftermarket" software just doesn't exist, or is really poor.
For example, can you believe that there are no good graphical FTP clients for linux? It's true. I have been using gFTP, which most people consider to be the best one, for about a week. It crashes almost daily, isn't very good option-wise, and it is soooo slow. I want something simple, say something like WSFTP for windows, and lo and behold it just doesn't exist. Seems remarkable that a good graphical FTP client doesn't even exist.
The same can be said for a Mavis-esque typing program, and a simple photo editor like the immensely popular Irfanview.
Indeed these are the stumbling blocks for me. Not the distribution, but rather the software inavailability.
Linux is doing great, just needs time (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Tapping into high-margin customer segments (server software, niche workstation software)
2. Tapping into the mass market (read: consumer)
In case 1. Linux is King (TM). Look at Amazon, Google, e-Bay, with more coming aboard.
In vase 2. XP is King. Which means there are more desktops to tap, and more consumers that are used to pay for software (or need the software) that run XP on their machines rather than Linux. We all know why, major reason being that traditionally Linux was not Desktop-Newbie-Consumer friendly. With the advent of DNC-friendly distros like Ubuntu, Xandros, Linspire (observe: paid or not!), the segment grows, more business plans result into positive ROI, more new software is written for Linux.
Granted, there are secondary problems in terms of supporting many distros, the fact that FOSS repositories have zillions of "new and exciting" software already for free (if only one could take the time and look at it), etc.
But the initial assertion of the article: open source viz closed source -> no new and exiciting software is a false assertion, I'm sorry to say.
Re:Article Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya know, I read and re-read the article at least three times (I really did!), because all I kept getting out of it was the sheer cluelessness of its premise. Seriously, Outlook? Is there anyone out there whose spent more than five minutes ruminating over computer OS issues who believes that Microsoft is seriously gonn get behind Linux/Unix versions of its flagship products?
Besides Dvorak, I mean.
The article also cites Shockwave and iTunes as examples; but I've never felt even remotely outta the loop for being without either one of them. I frankly don't understood the weird obsession with those silly little Mac music players (my 2-year-old, 20gb, non-DRM compliant, format agnostic iRiver still kicks serious enough ass, thank you); and as for Shockwave ... well ... in I dunno how many years of XP usage I've had to put up with, I've never even had to bother with using Shockwave, so why install it? So I can ... what ... finally have that full, uncrippled Disney.com [go.com] experience?
There's only one thing that ever brings me back to Windows with any regularity. And that's gaming, pure and simple. You show me a critical mass of support from the mainstream PC gaming industry for Linux/Unix support, and I'll be outta here faster than Mindy Gates can say "Microsoft Bob."
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:2, Insightful)
Closed Source is everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Closed source should not be defined as anything packaged in disks or as installable on the local machines. The majority of closed source is now disguised as Web Applications. When we raise arms against Microsoft, we are supportive or at best silent about the dozens of useful web applications that spring up. Google Maps, Spreadsheets, BaseCamp and the rest are as closed source as Microsoft are. And so are the algorithms that power things like search engines.
As Google and others bring newer applications on the Web, and as the desktop applications get replaced by Web Applications we will have "Closed Source 2.0".
Actually they might be worse that the current breed of closed source.
- When Web Applications shut down you have nothing!
- You dont have code to reverse engineer
- Hell, you don't even have the data with you
- You have no idea what they do with your data!
- Can we depend on their security?
Re:It's not all bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The same can be said with Open Office vs Microsoft Office in regard to open documents. I am finding closed documents a hassle because that means I can use only a very limited subset of apps to manipulate said document - and not every should be a one size fits all (except emacs:) )
I'm probably the exception these days, as with some hassle, drivers can be added to Windows to let it read other filesystem, and Open Office can run on Windows.
But other benefits of Open Source are repositories, as you mention, and I find the convenience of one central spot on my computer to download and automatically install known good software with a few button clicks (sans spyware/adware) beats any Windows experience hands down (which usually includes searching the web, downloading, installing, hoping it's not malware, adware, etcetera for every app).
I really could not see going back to something like Windows. It just seems like too much work and money. Quite a reversal from the Linux experience like around 1999 or so.
Re:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, I am pretty comfortable with linux, but this is just one area that irks me to no end... There's plenty of other areas, but honestly, I'd pay $100-300 for a mid-grade video editor (Similar in features to say Pinnacle Studio, or iMovie)
Photo editing is another big thing.. and no, the gimp does suck... not feature wise, function/UI wise.. GimpShop goes a bit towards making it better, would be nice to see those changes migrated into the main tree... I've always liked Paint Shop Pro... and if it ran decent under WINE would use it there instead of VMWare... It's one of the few Windows apps I still rely on.
Generall office apps, email and web browsing, pretty much there... outside of that, there is a *LOT* to be desired... how about a decent bittorrent client? I would KTorrent is decent, would like to see it approach uTorrent, or Azureus on usability/features... and in all honesty, if I had more time, I would donate some of it towards improving things... However, I do a lot more web based programming, and far less desktop/gui development.. it's a bit of a different mindset.
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
What the GP actually said was:
I can't see anything there that says "open source code" or "share ip", can you?Re:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:4, Insightful)
He's on firmer ground with flash - as in the browser plugin, anyway. Even then, I'm not too worried. All those flash ads out there provide therir own pressure on Adobe to keep Flash as cross platform as possible.
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux on the desktop is dead (Score:2, Insightful)
As a long time Gentoo user I have dealt with many problems over the years trying to use a Linux distro as a main desktop OS. And I have finally come to the conclusion that Linux on the desktop is not only dead, but never really got started.
I sit in chatrooms trying to help newbies and all I hear is "is there a Linux app that works like " And when you point them to the Linux equivalent they come back stating that the product you pointed them to is incomplete. Take Office and Openoffice.org for example. Sure Office is very bloated, but it is also the defacto standard and Openoffice has never been and probably never will be 100% compatible.
Another example is the day to day life of a web surfer, videos and flash from the web. All the interfaces available for Linux to stream video are so clunky that they are nearly unusable. And don't even get me started on Flash. It just sucks on Linux.
And then you have the poor hardware support. I have two laptops and two desktops. My two laptops are completely out of the question as most of the hardware is too new to be fully supported. Everything from native LCD resolutions to no native support for the wireless card. And on my desktops, one still runs Gentoo as a server, which Linux is ideally suited for, the other, in order to play games (which once again is pathetic on Linux) I have to run that other OS.
So to all the fanatics and fanboys, Linux will never be a force on the consumer's desktop. It's not bad on the business desktop because of its management capabilities and actually because of some of the flaws listed above (no worrying about employees watching movies or wasting time on Flash games). And in the back room Linux is the light in a once dark world with its power and plethora of server software.
Until the hardware manufacturers start writing native drivers (and aren't vilified for keeping their company secrets hidden) and until the major software manufacturers begin to believe that Linux is a viable consumer platform, Linux on the desktop is dead.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:4, Insightful)
That sort of behavior could conceivably make other companies disinclined to even consider linux.
Re:Closed Source is everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
on communities... (Score:2, Insightful)
yeah, that's like saying "the borg individuality"!
closed source community (Score:2, Insightful)
I've worked at two different (proprietary) software companies so far, and there has been zero sense of a community with other software companies - it's mostly outright hostility, with very ocassional cooperative work when we were doing some work with a hardware company, and some very basic, half arsed file format interop when customers demanded it.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Article Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
How the FUCK did this get modded up? (Score:4, Insightful)
when Linux shows multi-BILLION dollar profits
Linux and the GPL weren't designed to make money (though some people do make money off of Linux); they SAVE people money.
SUCCESSFUL business strategy
News flash: "Linux" in and of itself is not a business. And last I checked Red Hat and IBM were doing alright.
With the exception of servers and anti-virus software, Linux is far, far away from being a serious threat to Windows (and Macs.)
I have 5 machines in active use in my house. All of them dual boot XP/Ubuntu. No matter what machine I'm working with, when (re)installing XP I have to deal with the installer's MBR-related retardation and I have to hunt down and manually install the drivers for the network card, video card, and sound card. With the latest release of Ubuntu, ALL of my hardware is detected right out of the box. 3d-acceleration doesn't work, of course, but there are a few third party applications such as EasyUbuntu which automatically set this up for me. Installing Ubuntu and running EasyUbuntu is easier and by default requires less user input than XP and doesn't require hunting down drivers, and after it's done I can watch DVDs, check my email, surf the web, open or create MS Office documents using OpenOffice.org, play from a vast selection of Linux games (no, they're not Battlefield 2 but they're hella better than just Pinball, Minesweeper, Solitaire, Freecell, and Hearts... varients of which are all of which are included in the Ubuntu repositories, btw), easily install and run most simple Windows programs under Wine, and easily upgrade every single application on my computer with two mouse clicks.
Yes, there are still plenty of rough spots, but its flaws aren't 1/100 as bad as the flaws Windows 98SE had. 99% of XP's non-gaming desktop functionality is there, and the remaining 1% is largely a result of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices and/or Window's momentum (Windows-only programs/drivers/APIs, IE-only websites, etc.) And on top of Window's functionality, you get immunity to most forms of malware, the benefits of the Debian package managment (makes InstallShield look like rocket science in comparison, and it automatically keeps your stuff up to date), and all-around predictability and stability--weird stuff still occasionally happens, but it isn't an constant, everpresent fact of life like it is with XP. (And don't give me that "XP/2000 is just as stable as *nix" argument--that'scrap. It's a big improvement over 9x, but that's akin to saying Ramen noodles is an improvement over eating dog crap. It still crashes. It still causes apps to crash. It still behaves in an extremely unpredictable fashion--problems seemingly coming out of nowhere--at least a couple times a month.)
In terms of market share no, no it isn't a threat, but then Linux isn't a business, so market share isn't a terribly fair metric. Linux can thrive (and indeed has) even on an extremely small user base; Windows cannot.
I hearby pronounce the neverending joke about this finally being the "year of the Linux Desktop" officially dead. Linux IS on the desktop, and my grandmother DOES use it for everything most people use Windows for--email, web browsing, music, watching movies, casual gaming.
Re:What's to follow? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilest I will always to choose open solutions over closed ones where possible, I'm not convinced that having the entire software suite implemented before the closed source people take notice is necessarilly a good thing (if that were even possible). The closed software producers are often large corporations with a lot of marketting muscle and Linux may well benefit from them promoting their Linux versions of their software (and thus promoting the whole OS).
I mean, lets that a theoretical example:
Lets say Adobe ported PhotoShop to Linux. They put a bit of marketting behind it and a large chunk of PhotoShop users migrate over to Linux. (Ok, I guess this isn't necessarilly the best example since they're pretty attached to their Macs, but bear with me). A migration to Linux like this would give it quite a boost in the desktop market.
Conversely, let's just imagine that The GIMP gets as good as (or better than) PhotoShop before Adobe start caring about Linux. So now they have a viable free (as in beer) competetor to their rather expensive product. Are they actually going to want to promote Linux (which usually ships as standard with The GIMP)? Of course not, they're going to want to use their marketting weight to push people away from Linux in the hope that they can keep as many people as possible from discovering that they can get something as good as PhotoShop for free.
Yes, ok, so The GIMP is available for other platforms, but people are more likley to discover it if it's already installed when they get their computer.
Given time, any company wishing to compete in the Linux market will have to produce software which is significantly better than the established FOSS tools, and that has to be good for us computer users.
It's worth noting that (in my experience) most commercial decisions are not based on "what's best for the job" or even "what gives the most bang for our buck". I've lost count of the number of times employers have forced me to use some very expensive piece of software that really is nowhere near as good at the job as some FOSS software. In most of these cases, the expensive commercial software is a good 10 years behind the free equivalent. Many of these purchasing decisions seem to basically just be made on the "noone ever got fired for buying IBM" premise (replace "IBM" with any large corporation who has been selling expensive software for a long time).
MythTV (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd just like to say my PC was propping up dust until I discovered MythTV. After I read the myth features page I immediately backed up my personal stuff, wiped WinXP and installed Ubuntu Breezy. I've not been this excited about computing since I went to university and started using the web for the first time.
I was disappointed when I learned of all the limitations of XP MCE (*why* can't I play a DVD on one machine and watch it on a different TV?? It's mine isn't it?) and Mr. Demerijan off of the Inq mentioned mythtv to me.
Now I dream of multi TB servers with many DVB-T and S tuners and diddy mini ITX boxes under every TV.
Some day, eh? Not exciting my rosy red arse.
J1M.
P.S. (Score:3, Insightful)
I should clarify-- by "people", I meant companies as well. Hence, close sourced companies should learn to grow up and play well with Linux not because they can sell it, but because they can save money. Plus, since it's open source, they can easily modify any part of it as needed (they don't even have to redistribute the changes, so long as they don't distribute the binaries outside the company.)
As far as business desktop vs. home desktop needs go, I'd say Linux is even more suited for work environments because gaming is (usually) discouraged, user rights management is much better, and there's certainly no lack of development tools available for Linux.
This author will aways complain.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Then they complained it was not ready for dayly use - we got Linux servers everywere..
Then they complained we had no usefull desktop - we got GNOME, KDE and a lot of others..
Then they complained Linux could not run windows software - we got wine, Crossover Office etc.
Then they complained ther where no games - we got native games and wine/Cedega
Then they complained we could not watch DVD's etc. - we got libdvdcss and a way to incorporate a wole bunch of other formats.
Then they complained... oh well, you got the idea..
First they complain about BIG issuses. Now those issues are resolved, they keep complaining. Only - it's getting harder and harder to find things to complain about.
Now the only thing they can complain about is that Linux does not have a substitute for Outlook. Well - just wait a while. As soon as Microsoft is forced by the EU to release enough information there will be a Outlook-ish client for Linux.
You see - the problem is not Linux does not have a "Outlook". The problem is that Microsoft is keeping all the information to create such a "Outlook" close to his chest. It is impossible to create something "out of the blue" and expect to be compatible with Micosoft software. So - complain to the Big Brother in Redmond, because they are the ones keeping progress in Linux at minimum at this point..
And - last but not least...
There ARE realy exiting things happening. Only - the author seems to ignore them and is whining about Outlook and flash (oooohhh exiting, exiting - wow, wow, wow). The Outlook thingie is explained above, and flash? Well - there is a up-to-date flash for Linux coming (version 9) - its been worked on for some time now. Just have some patience please?
Fact is - Linux is growing every day. Wat was not possible yesterday is possible today, and what is not possible today will be tomorrow....
Still - I think people like the auhtor will allways find something to whine about. He never ever wil be satisfied about anything that isn't Windows. And thats the very core of the problem...
Note: sorry about my English - it's not my native language, so spelling mistake will occure now and then...
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:5, Insightful)
Milksnort!
But you have a good point. For me, the end user/non programmer guy, there aren't any absolutely compelling applications that make me want to move to Linux from OS X. On the other hand, there are some apps that compel me to stay on OS X, and given Apple's track record, there will be more apps to come. While the concepts of OSS and GPLv2 are great and worthwhile and make me supportive in general, in actual usage there isn't anything that comes close to being a "killer app".
My perception (which I am sure a few people are about to tell me is wholly wrong) is that there isn't any exciting development in the end user application space. Where is the application that beats the pants off of Final Cut Pro, or even iMovie? Where is the amazing application that does something that nobody developing for OS X or Windows has even thought of yet?
I'm not seeing it yet. I think that someday I will, but not yet. In some ways, this parallels the situation with PC Gamers not interested in moving to OS X. Where are the compelling games? If they come out for OS X at all, it's usually months after the PC release (with some exceptions). The difference is that I think it's likelier that I'll eventually come across an application that eventually overcomes my resistance to Linux. Someday Torvalds will replace Jobs as my deity. =)
I'm not saying that it will be easy for such a project to materialize and mature. It's going to mean an awfully lot of hard work, probably without the same opportunities for financial rewards.
One last thought:
Maybe I'm wrong to be looking for a desktop application to win me over. Maybe it won't be that sort of beast. Aside from desktop usage, I use Google constantly throughout the day, not to mention many other linux based sites and services. In that loose sense, perhaps I am already a linux user and those "boring" pieces of software you use underly my everyday experience.
Re:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the author of the piece thinks companies like Microsoft, Adobe and Oracle invented th PC and that Standards are what these companies use in their Closed Source products.
Obviously, it's very hard for people to write software for Linux, which supports these crooks. And on the other hand, there are litrally dozens of very old and useful programs.. simple commands actually, that work on Linux and Unix, but not on Windows.. let's see:
1. The ls, find, grep, | and other useful commands.
2. useradd (if I try to add a user in Windows AD using "net add" I get "Pre-Windows 2000 user", so that doesn't count)
3. ps (no simple way to list running processes... user-wise, and ip-address-wise)
4. kill -9
5. chmod
6. cp, ln and mv : By storing files all over the place, MS has made sure no sane user would type 'cp c:\winnt\system32\profiles\Admin.000\admin\My
7. Simple user-wise backup to a USB drive. In Linux, since all my files are under
After 2 decades, even such simple software is not available for Windows!
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well good for you - others however, have an interest in making their computers work reliably. This means being able to expect support from their vendor & the kernel.org people.
However, running a closed source kernel module, means giving up that support (as the kernel developers cannot diagnose problems over which they have no control).
My interest is in making my computer work, and work relaibly. That's why I linux over MS/Apple's proprietary offerings. and intel video chipsets over Nvidia or ATI's proprietary offerings.
P.S. - Nvidia reason for not wanting OSS drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
You say that OSS community doesn't want Nvidia to open source their driver (which is wrong, I've seen many demands for just that), they only want them to provide an open spec so the OSS community can write its own drivers.
Did you ever think that Nvidia doesn't want their hardware run by homebrew drivers, because they'll catch the flack when those drivers act whacky? Joe Blow buys some Lindows machine with some OSS Nvidia driver written by who-the-hell-knows, and when that driver acts up, Nvidia gets the blame. I understand Nvidia perfectly on this issue.
Who is he? (Score:1, Insightful)
Additionally, he was responding to a question from the parent post to his, so anything he puts down as an answer is valid AS an answer. Turning on him for answering is ridiculous. You may counter his answer with a reason why NVidia should keep the driver closed, but their answer to the question "why are NVidia closed drivers not liked" is still their answer and still an answer for many people. Those who don't agree (like you) aren't complaining about NVidia's drivers, so you cannot answer why people don't like the closed drivers, so what are YOU doing writing this?
ALL the defenses of NVidia closing their driver are based either on
1) Well 'cos they can
2) Well, they cannot because of other's "IP"
3) Well, they cannot because people would otherwise "steal" the ideas from NVidia
#1 isn't an answer
#2 is COMPLETELY the reason for OSS: if OSS was the norm, NVidia wouldn't have a problem
#3 is the reason why they shouldn't BSD their driver. GPLing means that if someone steals their idea and then improves it, NVidia get that development work back ("stealing" their ideas in return).
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad someone has said it and said it well. I think there are quite a few companies, especially ones producing highly specialized software, that would quite like to release Linux versions but they are held back due to the whole "if it's on Linux it must be open" thing. I always felt that the whole OSS movement was more about providing people with free and open tools not completely replacing / removing all closed source software. An open OS fits in with the idea of producing free tools, it's pretty easy to argue that an open source office suite also fits in with those goals but trying to force say a games manufacturer to release the code for their game is just plain silly and likely to hold back the apperance of such things on Linux.
Complete Misundersting of the Market (Score:2, Insightful)
The beauty of open source is that it greatly reduces the barrier to entry for anybody with more time than money to create a business. Four years ago I had an idea for an online business, so I asked a couple of engineer buddies of mine of how to implement it as I had no programming experience whatsoever, except that one semester of Pascal in highschool. I didn't have the money to drop $1,000+ for SQL Server or Oracle, but open source and the plethora of online tutorials were there for anyone willing to spend the time and learn.
Too many people think that open source has to compete with closed source, and more times than not, it doesn't. Every time someone chooses an open source solution, it doesn't necessarily mean that a closed source solution has lost a sale, it could mean that someone has decided to offer a product or service that he otherwise would not have due to lack of capital, as was my case.
Now, sometimes we use open source solutions, sometimes closed source, whatever happens to be the best solution (as far as we can tell) at the time. Quit worrying about open source having to create the best, cutting edge, products, and be happy with what it has allowed small companies around the world to do--compete affectively with the big boys.
So don't worry about it; there's a place for both and quit being so insecure about it.
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
I've had to "really use" ClearCase for a long time - it's one of the worst revision control systems I've ever had the misfortune of using. It doesn't even do atomic commits FFS!
dynamic views (which can sometimes be VERY useful)
Dynamic views _can_ be useful in *very* large and complex projects, but they can also make using it for simple stuff an absolute ordeal. And also in the many years I've had of using CVS and SVN I've never found that I absolutely needed dynamic views - there's always another way of doing it, and it's usually not hard.
IMHO the cons far, far outweigh the pros and the over-complexity makes you want to keep as much _out_ of the revision control system as possible, which is clearly the wrong way to do things. On projects that use SVN, the push is to get as much into the revision control system as possible, and that's a good thing (and SVN makes it extremely easy to read and update anything in the repository without fiddling around with views, et-al)
Please tell me how to deliver a binary file... (Score:2, Insightful)
When you've solved that, you might see a lot more software for Linux.
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a f***ing window manager. If you think a window manager is exciting then you're a bit of a loser - even by Slashdot geek standards. Do you really think that 99.9% of people think that a window manager is exciting new software?
If you people with the mod points (yes you) also think window managers are exiting, then please mod me down and I'll shut up and find a new website to read over my lunch hour.
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason to run inward-facing firewalls like that is if you can't trust the software you run. Obviously, this is not a huge issue on linux, but is on windows.
Also, the "per-application" thing is just plain silly. If you have unblocked one application, you have unblocked them all, given that you install as root. The malicious ones, anyway.
It's closed source fault. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
That someone is in no special position, because anyone can sell a rebranded version. So why would I buy from that one? I'd rather buy from the original company because they're the ones in a special position of knowing their product, and being able to support it better than a random guy.
On the other hand, if that someone provides good support and actually improves on the original product, then he gains a special position that makes his new version more desirable. With open source, people and products are forced to succeed on their own merits, instead of relying on lock-in schemes like Microsofts' file formats. To me that seems like a purer form of capitalism than ever.
Re:Article Summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not enough *good* software for Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who has worked in IT for more than a year or two should realise that retraining is important. You should not rely only on the things you learned many years ago. Poor software is the fault of the developers. To rely only on teachers is not good enough. Developers who aren't prepared to put at least a little of their own time into keeping up to date and retraining themselves should not be in this business.
Writing good SW is quite simple all you have to do is follow some good guidelines, the tricky part is what or where are these guidelines.
I have been writing software for 30 years, and I don't think writing good software is simple. Requirements keep changing. The approaches you have to use for a simple command-line program are often different from those for a GUI app, or a web app, or a real-time app. Sure, you can start with basic ideas of good structure and good documentation, but that is the barest essentials. There are testing and debugging skills that can take years to develop.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm currently using the open source "nv" driver without problems. Ideally, I'd prefer a truly open graphics card, with proper documentation and full Open Source drivers. A choice of masters is not freedom.
Re:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can think of few industries where this isn't the case (Medicine perhaps, at one time I would say NASA but no longer). With unrealistic deadlines and tight budgets, "good enough" isn't just the minimum acceptable goal, it's the only acceptable goal. Don't blame the software engineers for a problem inherent in the system.
Re:Should I waste my time? (Score:1, Insightful)
As soon as you create a, let's say, projectplan in HTML, and send it to anyone, they will complain about it (it cannot be printed, looks funny, etc). Also, when you get documents from others in DOC format, what do you do?
At least your solution looks very unprofessional to anyone outside of your company.
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:P.S. - Nvidia reason for not wanting OSS driver (Score:3, Insightful)
red herring. That's exactly the situation for anyone who buys gear shipped with Ubuntu, Suse SLED 10, or any of a half dozen other big distros. They ship with the nv driver only. No one blames Nvidia, they contact their vendor and ask for help.
Re:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:3, Insightful)
For pretty much any "non Linux corporation" Linux == x86 Linux.
Of course when you look at the deployed numbers it does kind of make sense but they could have an unsupported section for the other platforms. Writing portable Unix code doesn't seem to be all that hard, or else everybody wouldn't be doing it
Re:Don't include GPL'd code ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Spoken like someone who's truly never done it.
Libraries are the hard part. Take a look at any non-trivial application and look to see how many libraries it takes for various things.
ldd
43
Now, if I want to develop a big application, I will eventually need to do something that's already coded in some library. Maybe it's XML parsing or HTTP connections or SSL or whatever:
FOR EACH LIBRARY DO
1. Figure out *where* the license is.
2. Make an informed guess whether it's legal before you even try it.
3. Oh shit, it's the "libgumple Public License", not something obvious like GPL. Now I have to read 37 pages of legalese.
4. Give up, and forward it to the company lawyer who charges $500 an hour to say "No, you can't because of clause 33.4.2 paragraph 9, subsection B".
5. Write it ourselves, anyway or go without. Then deal with users that say: "Hey, Firefox does this, but you don't. Why can't you? How hard can it be?"
DONE
This, by no means of the word, is "easy". It is time-consuming and expensive.
Re:Don't include GPL'd code ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, yes, but then your example is of an open-source program that can freely use open-sourced libraries (for the most part). If you're writing your own app it starts out using no libraries. You then get to decide as you find a need for libraries which ones you'll use. Yes, you'll not be able to use a lot of common libraries and stay closed-source because those libraries are open-source. Similarly, open-source software can't use a lot of commercial libraries and stay open-source. It's a simple matter of deciding whether using the library's valuable enough to justify any license changes required.
Of course, if you use third-party commercial libraries you've got the additional problem of getting them to provide a Linux version you can use. Many vendors won't do that and without those libraries your app may not work. If you've got customers who want to pay you for a Linux version, ponder the lost revenue and consider that you're experiencing exactly why a lot of Linux users don't like closed-source software. As a software developer I find myself saying this a lot: "If I've got the source code I can fix the problem. If I don't, we're SOL.".
"Desktop User" in TFA parlance (Score:3, Insightful)
There's another def at work in a lot of the FUD. For TFA's author, Matt Harley "desktop user" means "user who got locked into a bunch of Microsoft or windows-based closed-source applications, often despite warnings about the potential for lock-in if heshe chose that stuff."
Now they're ready to check out Linux, and they're pist b/c there are only 17 email/calendar apps available. There should be 18! And the 18th has to be Outlook!
Now, it's not polite for the Lx crowd to just go "told you so" -- but the fact that this user is locked in is not a flaw in Linux. And when they open up the conversation in that way, they're going to get snide responses.Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:1, Insightful)
Almost by its very nature, there can never be a "killer app" for Linux. If it was truly killer, it would be ported to other platforms. (This has happened many times for less-than-killer apps.)
The killer feature for free software is its freedom. If you're looking for some Linux-only app that people would switch OSs for, you're not going to find it, because it's always going to be easier for a couple guys to port app X to Mac/Windows than to convert a boatload of people to Linux.
This itself is a change from the Visicalc days, when people had much less investment in their existing computers, and porting was really hard.
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it? Do they *pay* marketing campaigns to FUD the porting efforts?
Or, better, is it that they won't pay for such a port and, maybe, they will be vocal about their reasons not to do it?
But then to the best of my knowledge that's almost all they can do, and I was under the impression that this is a free market and free speech country so I can't really see nothing bad about their doings.
"NVIDIA and ATI drivers? "Proprietary, to the stake!" You know, because its just so much worsethan having no drivers at all."
To the stake? To the best of my knowledge -again, every major Linux distributions comes with some kind of helper in order to install those drivers. And they don't include them within the distribution, you know way? BECAUSE NEITHER NVIDIA NOR ATI ALLOW THEM TO DO SO.
"The point is proprietary software has TRIED to getalong with OSS"
The point is proprietary software has TRIED to getalong with OSS ON THEIR OWN TERMS. What a pity I am running open source because I DISLIKE THEIR TERMS (among other things). It is not as if Linus Torvalds would say "No, no, it comes from NVidia, or Microsoft, or AutoDesk, so I don't want to know anything about them". All and every GPLed software from ANY company will be gladly accepted. Do they really want to getalong with OSS? Well, they won't have to scale unsurmountable mountains, they won't have to give me sand from the hidden side of the Moon, they won't have to make promise to go to church every Sunday... they only have to produce GPL software. I mustn't have to be such a difficult enterprise, after all even communists, hippies and pimply basement aficionados seem to be able to do it!