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."
I guess he's not looking then (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, exactly. Just to throw out a few other names besides XGL, how about GLScube [glscube.org] or Xen [wikipedia.org]. None of these (XGL included) is ready for prime time yet. But they show the exact opposite of what TFA claims - Linux, if anything, has plenty of 'exciting' software.
If there is something lacking, it is boring software for Linux. TFA basically admits this when it talks about a "lack of exciting software", then complains about not having Outlook on Linux. Is Outlook then his idea of 'exciting software'? I doubt it, Outlook is the most boring piece of software ever. Perhaps it is necessary for certain corporations. But it isn't exciting.
I read TFA, looking for examples of really 'exciting' software missing in Linux. Couldn't find any.
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:3, Informative)
I think TFA talks mainly about productivity software, not about OS components or servers.
No, the Article is Right On! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:3, Interesting)
I've recently set up DVD Decrypter on linux with wine. The latest version of Wine *seems* to run DVD Decrypter flawlessly. Anywy there are other (linux native) DVD ripping solutions. Have a look at DVD::Rip [slashdot.org].
For me the problem is that I can't find an alternative to my DVD to DVD-R method. I'm using CCE (probably the best MPEG-2 encoder) and DVD-Maestro to make DVD compliant streams. Any alternative suggestion would be welcome ;)
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what's available on Windows but Dvd::Rip seems to be fairly feature complete to me. The only thing is doesn't seem to like being interrupted.
There are other such tools however that are more or less specialized so you might
"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 fac
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:I guess he's not looking then (Score:5, Interesting)
For me, that has been amaroK and GNU screen. (I'm easily impressed.)
I've heard LIVES [sourceforge.net] and Cinelerra [heroinewarrior.com] are quite good (though I couldn't get Cinelerra working at all). But I recently discovered Kdenlive [sourceforge.net], which seems nearly feature-complete. (Its media import library seems to be missing a few things, but that's ok, it's not version 1 yet.) They're probably not iMovie, but they're the best NLV editors I know of.
Yeah, and unfortunately, we have to depend on Wine and Cedega for our gaming fix most of the time. (Although things like Tuxracer, Chromium, or even Singularity can be a good distraction.)
Chances are, what you want is under development now. You'll just have to dig for it and help them out.
Then maybe, you're ready to make the move now. It wasn't until I dropped Windows entirely for 3 months that I realized nothing truthfully was holding me back. Yeah, I kinda miss playing Tron 2.0 and Final Fantasy XI.... Even Homeworld. But I could easily leave those behind for Linux. I actually can't think of anything on Windows I need any more. Even at work, where I use Windows, the first things I installed were Cygwin and GVim.
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:3, Insightful)
Re:I guess he's not looking then (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the alternative file dialog, because people loudly complained about the original GTK fle dialog [linuxheadquarters.com] (I found it nice after some time with it). Now people loudly complain about the new fle dialog (I like that also) and it seems that the complainers will only be statisfied when they get a copy of the POS win32 file dialog (at which point I will start complaining).
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 b
Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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: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.
Re:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:3, Informative)
AppArmor [novell.com] is vastly superior, in that it also can be used to regulate resource privelidges on a per-application basis, but instead of only controlling network access, AppArmor works on a system-wide basis. Furthermore, AppArmor can isolate applications from one another. The GUI isn't so bad.
Oddly enough, we have "Ask Slashdot:" articles discussing the very technology that underlies AppArmor, LSM, and how one might be able to find a similar thing on Windows.
Furthermore, the types o
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:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:3, Funny)
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:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll one-up you. The major problem isn't there little good software, but very few good software engineers.
Read it in toto before modding it. Thanks.
I've said before [that] 98% of the people in the industry don't belong and usually get a lot of private rants 'n raves when I've said it before[1], so I've reduced it to 95% to provide some leeway for compromise, attempting too make them happy[1]. People think it's fun, they make decent money, it's a challenge, and people direct comments to them as though they ran into John Holmes at Roselawn, Indiana[2]. You da man! All of that put together makes their ego make them take a swing at every ball which comes across the plate.
Code is inflated, buggy, a log of it written via trial & error, and if an actual review were to audit a sizeable fraction of code when prepared to be used, there'd be a lot of rewritten code or better coders who keep their jobs.
The best way to explain it is one of my quotes from a long, long time ago. It's a simple compromise, but if people knew what they were paying for, there would be a lot of unhappy people (and companies) running around:
"In this industry, you don't have to be good, just good enough."
_____________________________________
[1] Now, if you were to fall into the category of good why would you be p%ssed off about the other (larger) percentage? There are a lot of people who get upset when I assert these numbers. But it's like teaching a chess class: "Everyone who is a beginner or non-player go here ; everyone else
[2] When it was intact and he was alive. I'm trusting I shouldn't have to explain either of these, but that's what Google and Wikipedia are for.
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: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
Re:Not enough software for Linux ? (Score:3, Informative)
Why no other programs have this is beyond me. It seems like an obvious feature.
Article Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
I was kind of hoping for something a bit broader than one example heaped with a few generalities...
Re:Article Summary (Score:3, Funny)
You're new there, aren't you?
KFG
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:Article Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Article Summary (Score:2)
Not entirely true, but .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not entirely true, but .... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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 s
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: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).
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
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:3, Informative)
I agree with most of your argument but I also can't help feeling that the lack of closed source development for Linux is hurting the community as a whole. Perhaps companies developing closed source software for Linux won't advance the Linux code base much but having, potentially, tens of thousands of software developers using the libraries and reporting bugs should help improve the to the point where they are far better than any closed source set of libraries.
I think part of the problem companies see with
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.)
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.
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
Re:I believe just the opposite (Score:4, Insightful)
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*
WAAAA???? (Score:3, Interesting)
Pro graphics apps (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Wait a second... (Score:4, Insightful)
That sort of behavior could conceivably make other companies disinclined to even consider linux.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, it runs inside the kernel which means a bug in the software can kill the whole OS. The kernel is GPL meaning that a closed source module is illegal. They use a GPLed wrapper though, putting it in the legal grayzone inste
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 g
Re:P.S. - Nvidia reason for not wanting OSS driver (Score:3, Insightful)
red herring. That's exactly the si
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, they don't have any right. The owner of a physical object is, by virtue of ownership, automatically privy to any secret embodied in that object. By not providing proper documentation, nVidia are violating the common-law property rights of everyone who buys one of their cards. The reason nVidia don't provide document
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 relaib
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Informative)
What software developers have told me (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, this is exactly what I have heard from a number of software vendors. I review software and gadgets for a few web sites. One of my testing criteria, particularly for hardware, is if the hardware is Linux-compatible. When it comes to software I always ask if there are any plans to offer a Linux version of the software. The answer that I hear the most often is in regards to a lack of available resources, which I certainly can understand since I review a lot of software form independent companies. But when I question further about asking Linux coders to help with the conversion, the major of companies that have shown an interest in a Linux port say that they've attempted to do so, but the programmers that they approached expect the software to be open-sourced if the company is to get their help. I've even had some developers of software that's geared more towards a particular science admit that they think there would be a huge demand on their software for Linux, but the "requirement" by Linux coders that the software is open-sourced killed the prospect of releasing a Linux version.
As much as I'd like to brush that off as "just an excuse", look at a lot of the replies here on Slashdot about Linux and open-source and you'll quickly see that HE'S RIGHT! I love open-source (or at the very least open standards) just as much as anyone else here and I use it whenever feasible. But there is definitely an assumption among a lot of Linux users that if it's available on Linux the course code has got to be made available or else it doesn't belong on Linux, like it's some kind of plague.
Now, I'll confess that this attitude has been diminishing as Linux eeks its way into the mainstream. The attitude is shifting away from open source and more towards open standards. But there is still a big movement and big preconception that "Linux == Open Source" and "Closed Source != Welcome On Linux".
NOT flaming here, folks. Just relaying what I've been told by software developers and what I've seen here on
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:3)
But there is definitely an assumption among a lot of Linux users that if it's available on Linux the course code has got to be made available or else it doesn't belong on Linux, like it's some kind of plague.
And it's correct! The whole point of the FSF and the GNU operating system (usually running on a Linux kernel) is to make an entirely Free operating system, with Free applications. The whole point of this entire exercise is to make closed source software superfluous, not just Windows. That's the main
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 t
No, it's not BS just because you want it to be. (Score:3, Informative)
However, you cannot deny that there it a very strong sense of "Make the source code available!" in the Linux community. I'm NOT saying that it's right or wrong, just that it's there. And don't say that Linux coders do not require open source! I've seen postings on Slashdot and other Linux communities that have actually criticized companies for releasing software on Linux but not making their source cod
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:3, Informative)
I've been employing people on software projects for the past ten years, and I've worked in the biz for more than double that, and I have yet to have a coder refuse a job because their code was going to be closed, open, or printed on toilet paper and flushed for that matter.
I don't know what bizarro world you're inhabiting, but it all sounds like FUD to me.
Re:What software developers have told me (Score:3, Funny)
Welcome to Slashdot!
It is just like UNIX in the 80s and 90s (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is this. (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux, and most of the other software distros bundle with it, is all licensed under the GPL, and is generally licensed as such for a reason: the developers are dedicated to Free Software. The question of proprietary kernel drivers, and many other issues, are consistently decided in favour of continuing to strictly adhere to GNU/Free Software standards.
On the other side of the fence, proprietary software is Closed Source in order to maximize revenue. Much of it will stay closed
you need more specific standards (Score:2)
as for me, i like amarok. screw itunes, love ya xmms, but bye, and the featureset for 1.4.2 is actually better than any other alternative, period.
and since i listen to music ALL day while working, this is not a minor thing for me... it's great.
god bless amarok and all who sail with it.
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.
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.
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.
"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:
Re:What's to follow? (Score:3, 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.
Re:Tell me about it (Score:2, Interesting)
for gui ftp clients: Kasablanca, GFTP, KBear, FireFTP Konqueror
for IfranView: XnView, GQView
for a Mavis-esque typing program: KTouch and GNU Typist
Re:Tell me about it (Score:5, Informative)
It's called Konqueror. It has these wonderful things called 'ioslaves' which can be accessed by special 'protocols'. Not only does it support browsing the local filesystem and the web, but also ftp sites (ftp://ftp.gnu.org), secure ftp (sftp://blah), info and man page viewing (info:/libc, man:/fstab), and a whole host of other resources. And it presents a unified and self-consistent interface to all of them.
There are fantastic GUI clients for FTP on Linux, and sometimes you don't realize you're already using one on a day to day basis (assuming you're a KDE user).
Re:Tell me about it (Score:3, Informative)
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 mo
Proprietary software follows the money (Score:2)
or
There is some tremendous stuff running in the Linux/BSD world (especially server or
Look beyond the MS desktop - it is everywhere (Score:4, Interesting)
There are more uses for a computer other than a glass typewriter, a ledger book or a toy.
One last comment about the example - Outlook not so good. Nearly every other email client stores data in a form that can be recovered by a even a text editor or by tools from the same vendor - not an obfiscated database that requires dodgy shareware tools to fix.
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:Closed Source is everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
Different computers for different jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
You want Outlook on your screen - no problem - just export it via X windows from your MS windows box to wherever you are. You mean that hasn't worked since NT 3.51? OK - it looks like you are stuck with MS windows since VNC is too much of a pain for constant use - but you can do things the other way with an X server on your windows box letting you run things remotely at full speed on other machines on the network. Exceed, cygwin and many other implementations of X Windows on MS Windows let you do this.
The single user non network aware model still exists with MS Windows - the idea of exporting an entire terminal session is still about as clunky as an IBM 3270 terminal from decades past. Thankfully it only cuts one way - almost everything else works OK with MS Windows over a network even if MS Windows works with practicly nothing else.
Should I waste my time? (Score:5, Interesting)
In our site, we've got Active Directory for a group of 700 systems, and about 1200 users. I think Craptive Directory is a better word for this piece of junk. We tried migrating from Win2K server to Win2K3, and the damn thing called domain-prep and forest-prep threw out an error page some 500 meters long. Smoke's coming outta' my ears just reading reams and reams of error messages.
So, I ask the security chap..
What if we migrate to a better Directory server.. we're thinking of OpenLDAP or Fedora Directory Services. I asked this bloke to backup Active Directory, just in case. He says It Can't Be Done!!! It's just not possible to take a backup of the bloody damn POS s/w that's used to store the company's most valuable information. It's JUST NOT POSSIBLE TO transfer it to a better config. or even upgrade to a higher version smoothly. Seriously, why people ever choose Crapware like Active Directory, Exchange, LookOut or Office is beyond me.
And so, we're sitting down, thinking long hard thoughts... wondering what we should be doing, to ensure we're fine, atleast 2 years from now... some points: (Actually this bloke Matt Hartley may have done us a big favour - he's made all the wrong arguments and points in one piece!)
I. Use ONLY open standards and specs. No compromise on this at any cost.
1a. We've decided to go in with HTML for 'documents'. Why do we need docs? We need to look at them, we need to print them, we need to email them so others can see, and we need to be able to write tools that can manipulate OUR data in OUR docs. And so, it's gonna be HTML from here on out. The Nvu editor seems the best suited for this thing, so we're going with it.
1b. We don't use spreadsheets a lot. For those rare cases, we've decided to go in for Gnumeric, and csv as the format. No more of those bloody macros in the a/cs dept. We've developed all their apps on a server, we're giving them Import and Export to cvf where needed, and that's it.
1c. PowerPoint: We've told the suits to go in with Impress for the time being... under OpenOffice. Until we figure out the best Open Source tool for presentations, that works to Open Standards, that is. All told, we have very few suits.. less than a dozen, so let them start picking up these skills NOW!
II. Groupware: No more fiddling around with the Exchange Server or the Notes server trying to figure out how to build some site-specific features we need. No point. We've figured the only thing MS or IBM care about is licensing money, not adherence to standards, delivering something useful to us, or anything. They just want license money, so we're looking elsewhere.
We're also trying to build in some CRM functions... we heard Dynamics works only under Craptive Directory, so we're giving it a miss. SugarCRM seems useless without their commercial license, so we're ditching it too.
We're experimenting with vTiger, Drupal, Mambo, phpBB and Moodle.. yes, Moodle. It looks the easiest of the lot to actually build community-oriented features, and has the most elegant of interfaces. No need for any client, no Evolution, no Zimbra, no nothing. Just a customised Groupware client that does the job for us. That works the way we like. That helps our users relate to what software we provide them.
So, we asked ourselves, what are we doing with our email system?
1. Announcements, Circulars and Notifications: We've decided to have them at the top of our Groupware page. Every intended recipient to indicate they've read the message.. some option for a feedback. No more tons of "Read" messages to the sender, no more Acknowledgement emails... no nothing. Just a one-page report to the Sender of which users have Read, Not Read, and Comments. That's it for this category of mails.
2. Calendaring: We figured out this is not really important for all users, and the few who need it, need it in diffe
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It's closed source fault. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't include GPL'd code ... (Score:2, Interesting)
If I wished to write software for Linux and charge for the software (Not just support) is it realisticly achievable without having to re-write a swag of libraries.
Is support the only way to 're-coup' costs from a research and development, or is the best open source business model to just not bother until someone explicitly pays you to develop the work. Then release it for free (a
Re:Don't include GPL'd code ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't include GPL'd code ... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. Most libraries on Linux are released under the LGPL or other licenses that do not force you to distribute source code to applications that link to those libraries. Of course you should check the licence for each library you intend to use first (just as you should in the proprietary world).
Re:Don't include GPL'd code ... (Score:3, Informative)
It's not only possible, it's easy. The main thing to watch is libraries. All you have to do is avoid using libraries available only under the GPL in your program. The only critical libraries that your program will have to use are glibc and the GCC C++ library module, and both of those are under LGPL-style licenses. As long as you dynamically link to them (so the library object code isn't physically included in your executable) you don't have a licensing problem. Other libraries you'll have to look at their
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
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 dec
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux is not ready for the desktop (Score:3, Interesting)
You say you sit in chatrooms trying to help people. You should know that.
Heck, the guy in the article was complaining that Evolution doesn't work like Outloo