Why should I use Linux if I can get all the good linux apps on Windows?

[commodore]

I actually do use Linux and I like it. I don't like how all these good Linux applications can be installed on Windows. There's no reason for Windows users to use Linux because they can use great Linux apps on Windows. If I were a programmer I wouldn't make anything for Windows. The GNU project was to make a free OS, but Windows isn't it so why should GPL-ed and open-source apps be available for Windows? If people want to use free software they should use a free OS too.

I know I pissed a lot of people, but I had to say this :D

[canadianwriterman]

Ah, but your basic premise is not necessarily true. Not ALL the best apps can be installed on Windows. Take k3b for example, and I'm sure we can assemble quite a good list of Linux-only apps.

[megamania]

Ah, but your basic premise is not necessarily true. Not ALL the best apps can be installed on Windows. Take k3b for example, and I'm sure we can assemble quite a good list of Linux-only apps.

And we could add that good open-source applications available for Windows (Firefox and Thunderbird, for example) can make people curious about Linux...

[LordHunter317]

I actually do use Linux and I like it. I don't like how all these good Linux applications can be installed on Windows.Why? I'm forced to use Windows at my job, so why should I be denied the ability to use OSS applications, even if they were originally written for Linux?

There's no reason for Windows users to use Linux because they can use great Linux apps on Windows.Ahh, but that's not true. Even if it was, closing community doors by forcing all software originally written for Linux to stay on Linux would chase more people away then it would bring forward.

Certainly, even if some people don't migrate because they can use OSS apps on Windows, that number is less than the number turned off by exclusionary polices such as what you suggest.

The GNU project was to make a free OS,And it has yet to accomplish it's goals. Linux is not the GNU OS, despite what RMS would have you believe; Hurd is. Yet Linux uses GNU tools, so you're being hypocritical if your goal is GNU purity, which is a stupid goal anyway.

If people want to use free software they should use a free OS too.That just doesn't follow. Are you suggesting Solaris users shouldn't use GNU tools? Solaris shouldn't ship GNOME anymore? AFAIK, the GNOME developers are fine with that. What about AIX? Or HP-UX? Or any other commercial UNIX?

I know I pissed a lot of people, but I had to say this :DYou're only pissing me off because it's obvious a) you didn't think any of the ramifications of this through for even a second b) you're clearly ignorant on the matters to consider.

[asimon]

If I were a programmer I wouldn't make anything for Windows. The GNU project was to make a free OS, but Windows isn't it so why should GPL-ed and open-source apps be available for Windows
Because the idea of the GPL is that you should be able to do anything you want with the software (as long as it stays GPL compatible). And that includes running it on Windows.
If you don´t want people to run your software under Windows, then the GPL is clearly not for you.

[canadianwriterman]

You're only pissing me off because it's obvious a) you didn't think any of the ramifications of this through for even a second b) you're clearly ignorant on the matters to consider.

You may be right, LordHunter317, but be kind.

[healychan]

And other simple reason is that Linux is free but Windows isn't.

Apart from that, the performence of Linux is better than Windows, especially when running as a server.

[David Marrs]

Why should you use Linux when most Windows and Mac software won't run on it? Presumably because you see some advantage in using it over Windows, despite that sacrifice. Besides which, isn't much of the spirit of open source sharing and breaking down barriers to usage? Why should Windows users be deprived of the benefits of free software? Indeed, how will they see their benefits if they can't use them?

Linux is not the GNU OS, despite what RMS would have you believe; Hurd is.
Linux is not the GNU OS kernel, something that RMS goes to great pains to point out. Did the GNU/Linux debacle pass you by?

[Lord Illidan]

This GNU/Linux debacle really pisses me off. It is one of the things that makes us look really stupid to the outside world, two intellectuals arguing about such a stupid thing as what to name their favourite OS..

IMHO, having a machine purely GNU is almost impossible. No NVIDIA or ATI drivers, for one thing, and you lose much of the programs you need.

Now, about the Linux apps.

There are linux apps which are not available for Windows. Take KDE and GNOME for example! Yes, they are Window Managers, but imho, they beat Explorer in functionality and appearance. Or Amarok! It is unavailable for Windows. That said, I like it that many great opensource apps are available for Windows. It eases the pain when I have to use MS.

[LordHunter317]

Linux is not the GNU OS kernel, something that RMS goes to great pains to point out.And in this case, is pointless semantics. Linux is not part of the GNU project at all. It has not relation to it. It never has, it never will. The GNU project has tried to "adopt" it to cover up for the lack of working Hurd, but no one believes it but them.

[commodore]

What's RMS?

[LordHunter317]

Richard Stallman.

[earobinson]

The answer to this question is a matter of oppininion, If you feal that you can get all the good apps in windows and there is no diference between windows and linux then you shoudent.

however as mentioned about there are lots of apps that you cant get in windows like k3b.

I however want to point out that unless you install cgiwin (sp?) or something like that you cant get the terminal and structure of linux (software tools is where it is at and give linux a lot of power)

[Norberg]

I think that making opensource apps on Windows and other properitary OS is a great way to marketing Linux, If you use alot of opensource software when you use Windows its less that stops you from switch to Linux one day when Windows is not working properly you may think that you could give Linux a try(happend to me) and then you hoppfully like it and you newer turn back to windows.

[earobinson]

I think that making opensource apps on Windows and other properitary OS is a great way to marketing Linux, If you use alot of opensource software when you use Windows its less that stops you from switch to Linux one day when Windows is not working properly you may think that you could give Linux a try(happend to me) and then you hoppfully like it and you newer turn back to windows.
Thats exactly how my switch happened.

[tageiru]

And in this case, is pointless semantics. Linux is not part of the GNU project at all. It has not relation to it. It never has, it never will. The GNU project has tried to "adopt" it to cover up for the lack of working Hurd, but no one believes it but them.
Yes?

That is exactly why the system should be named GNU/Linux, to point out that it is not the complete GNU system, but only the GNU userland with the Linux kernel.

The FSF has always been clear about this.

[LordHunter317]

That is exactly why the system should be named GNU/Linux, to point out that it is not the complete GNU system, but only the GNU userland with the Linux kernel.

The FSF has always been clear about this.Yes, but their reasoning why is bunk. Because like it or not, by doing that, they're claiming ownership they have no right to claim.

It's nonsensical anyway. While they're an apppreciable portion of the userspace, they're not hte whole thing, and I don't call the Solaris boxes I've worked on with GNU toolchains installed GNU/Solaris, so they're hypocrites for not applying it evenly.

So however you look at it, it's bunk.

[jobezone]

IMHO, having a machine purely GNU is almost impossible. No NVIDIA or ATI drivers, for one thing, and you lose much of the programs you need.

Not true. This is what installing the vrms program in my system told me about non-free programs I have installed in my girlfriends computer (she's a desktop computer and ex-windows user):

sun-j2re1.5 Java(TM) 2 RE, Standard Edition, Sun Microsystems(TM)
unrar Unarchiver for .rar files (non-free version)
So she has unrar to open archives compreesed with the most recent rar versions, and java2 to run Sarsha (dvd movie maker). The remaining needs she has are 100% taken care by free and open source software.

This is probably the same with my own computer.

[LordHunter317]

Not true. This is what installing the vrms program in my system told me about non-free programs I have installed in my girlfriends computer (she's a desktop computer and ex-windows user):Actually, it doesn't do what you think it does. Read the documentation.

[Zahrber]

I think you are missing something first I run Linux not for the apps but for the powerful, more secure, stable operating system. That will give me more control over my system and have fewer threats from attackers.

secondly if a programmer writes a great program and offers it for free under a GPL or similar license then he/she would like for everyone to use it or they would not have made it free.

thirdly open source is not Linux specific, the operating system has nothing to do with it, it has to do with a community of people helping people with a common interest for their own personal reasons...

[oldmanstan]

It's sort of pointless to discuss what should and shouldn't be available in windows as far as GPL open-source software goes. The point of the GPL license is to make the sources available to people to do with them as they please. Therefore if someone wrote a linux ONLY app (used libraries not available under windows, etc. whatever) someone would still be perfectly free to port it to windows. FREEDOM is the whole point of the GNU / open software movement. If programmers or the GNU or the FSF were to tell people not to port apps to windows they would be enormous hypocrites because they would be limiting FREEDOM just like M$ does.

This isn't a war against Windows and Microsoft, it is a war against closed software and, more importantly, against limits to freedom itself. To limit freedom in any way as far as open source software goes would be a defeat.

[Lord Illidan]

I think you have a point there, when you say that open source apps on Windows help to migrate. I was using Firefox, Thunderbird, and Open Office, so I already had some background. However, it was a shock to use Gaim and Kopete, and Amarok for the first time, I admit. Though I know experience that shock when I use Windows XP, because I can't live without these apps now. Amarok in particular!

[hillbilly]

- I initially jumped on the linux bandwagon, coz it was different.
- And later on i loved CLI so much that I hated using the mouse on windows for every other thing.
- Then I needent be worried about installing anything on linux.
- There are plenty of apps to whet your appetite.
- You can customize till eternity.
- You neednt hunt around for a proper development environment.
- You suddenly understand a lot of things about computers you never did while you were using windows, like interrupts, processes, networking, multi-user system e.t.c
- You dont need a salary for getting this OS.
- You cant mess up the system (atleast not easily)
the list can go on.....

Its no just the apps that make the OS !!

[jobezone]

The vrms program will analyze the set of currently-installed packages on a
Debian GNU/Linux system, and report all of the packages from the non-free
tree which are currently installed. You're right, it works best in Debian since it tells which programs where installed from Debian's non-free section. Still, I have simillar results on my debian machine, and the results I got in ubuntu are what I expected (and remember installing).

[LordHunter317]

No, that wasn't my point at all. My point is it won't tell you what software is on your system that wasn't written by the GNU foundation.

The name is really, if anything, just making fun of RMS.

[odrop]

Just to throw my two cents in on the actual topic of the post, I think its very important for Linux applications to be on Windows.

First, it helps spread the word about Linux. I don't know how much these applications advertise they're from Linux, but anything is good (as long as it works well and integrates well within the Windows environment.)

Second, people can see Linux and Linux users have good quality products. Not bogged down by spyware, advertisements, annoying popups for money and everything else you get with many Windows applications. I know whenever I go try a new Windows application, I have to first go searching through the net to see how 'bad' this software is (viruses, trojans, spyware, advertisements, etc, its a headache). When I use Linux and Linux software, its a sweet bit of nirvana.

Third, as a budding developing myself, I'd like to see my software that I create used by the widest audiences. I'm sure there's many others out there that feel the same way.

Fourth, anyone getting into Linux from Windows, has to face a lot of new programs, new commands, new interfaces, etc. It's scary and unfamiliar. If they can be exposed to these applications on Windows and gain experience there, and find the same applications here on Linux, its great for them and one less burden for them to climb.

Linux (and its applications), to me, is about freedom. Trying to keep it and its software only on Linux is a shame.

[ardchoille]

I actually do use Linux and I like it. I don't like how all these good Linux applications can be installed on Windows. There's no reason for Windows users to use Linux because they can use great Linux apps on Windows. If I were a programmer I wouldn't make anything for Windows. The GNU project was to make a free OS, but Windows isn't it so why should GPL-ed and open-source apps be available for Windows? If people want to use free software they should use a free OS too.

I know I pissed a lot of people, but I had to say this :D
Linux is much more secure and stable than Windows:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

Now, I know there are people who say Windows is more secure and stable than Linux, but that is simply not true.

[jobezone]

No, that wasn't my point at all. My point is it won't tell you what software is on your system that wasn't written by the GNU foundation.

And neither was that my point. My point was that 99,9 % of this system was made of free and open source software.
name is really, if anything, just making fun of RMS.
I think it's both a joke and a tribute to RMS. This is the 2nd part of the package's description:

Future versions of vrms will include an option to also display text from the
public writings of RMS and others that explain why use of each of the
installed non-free packages might cause moral issues for some in the Free
Software community. This functionality is not yet included.

EDIT: I've just reread your original comment I replied to, and indeed you're saying that "having a machine purely GNU is almost impossible". I just didn't read it right, as it seemed to me that you were talking about purely free software. sorry about that :/ So you're right, not wrong.

[harisund]

here's my 2 cents ..

My choice of operating system simply depends on what works and what works the best. I don't like to tinker with the machine simply to get something to work.

First up, I prefer Open Source / Free software, not because they cost me nothing, but because their support is the community. I have always believed in community (200 posts here .. ) and there hasn't been a problem that I have had that hasn't been solved by somebody across the world. I love that. And I love the feeling of giving back by helping some one too.

What do I love about Ubuntu? The installation. I was coding in php and I needed to add a module. What do I in Windows? Download, extract, edit some .ini files, copy some .dll files over and so on. What did I do instead? apt-cache search curl | grep php and apt-get install php5-curl. Bam ! It works. Why even bother with Windows ??

But, my scanner didn't work in Ubuntu out of the box. In Windows, it was a simple matter of running a .exe file and clicking a few OKs. The drivers installed, programs ready and I was scanning. Why bother with Ubuntu?

I said earlier I don't want to tinker with the machine. What I meant was when I had to do something else. But when I do sit down with the intention of tinkering with the OS, yes, nothing beats a UNIX based system with the source open. Where can I learn to program the kernel? Linux of course. Do I prefer editing the beast named registry, or do I prefer editing ASCII files so well commented? No doubt..

As another poster mentioned, the software that I generally use are available cross platform and hence I remain in one OS till the need arises to switch. But don't mistake me, I am no newbie either in the Linux world or the Windows world.. I love both and work with both..

So as an answer to the parent poster's " Why should I use Linux if I can get all the good linux apps on Windows?", because certain things just work ..

[Galoot]

Unpacking vrms (from .../apt/archives/vrms_1.9_all.deb) ...
Setting up vrms (1.9) ...

An invocation of vrms has been added to the set of cron jobs run on a
monthly basis, so that you will get a periodic reminder of non-free
packages which are installed on your system. Here is the current list:
...Ahhhh hahahaha!!

[Rovenhot]

Linux is much more secure and stable than Windows:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

Now, I know there are people who say Windows is more secure and stable than Linux, but that is simply not true.

That's why I'll never have a Windows machine on my home network. If I suddenly find the urge to get a Windows game, I'll use Wine.

[Lord Illidan]

That's why I'll never have a Windows machine on my home network. If I suddenly find the urge to get a Windows game, I'll use Wine.

I think some people tend to exaggerate a bit. I have used Windows XP for quite a bit, and with proper tools, and knowledge of what not to install and which sites not to visit, my system remained fine. Some of us spread to much FUD imho.

[LordHunter317]

Linux is much more secure and stable than Windows:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

Now, I know there are people who say Windows is more secure and stable than Linux, but that is simply not true.This article is crap. Don't get your security information from The Register.

[tbrownaw]

Because even though it's possible to make windows do focus-follows-mouse, it doesn't seem to be possible to turn off raise-on-click.

(of course metacity requires hand-editing gconf for the latter, and I can't seem to find the setting for the former any more... :???: )

Tim

[Mr_Grieves]

I guess a good rule for devlopment is: develop on the platform of you're users.
If you're developing stuff for Linux users.. develop in a Linux enviorment.. if it's Windows that you're users are using mostly.. use Windows.. and if it's a bit of both.. use both. I'm not that much of a developer/programmer myself, but it makes perfect sense.

[Azion]

True, although cross-platforming is becoming easier.

It's still better to stay with your platform though

[Takeshi Miya]

Cross-platform programming with native widgets support is really easy nowadays with wxWidgets. I just love wxWidgets,

I'm using it from 2 years ago, and it's the environment I have been searching for years.