Porting software to Windows - Why run Linux?

[ronnielsen1]

Don't get the title wrong. I've been using linux for some time and I know there's alot of advantages (I can open up a lot of apps at the same time for one) but there's something that's bothering me.
I installed windows (after years of not having it) on a separate partition, thinking my son would use it for certain games he couldn't play in linux and switch back to linux to play what he couldn't play in windows.
Nice theory.
He's got Open Office, Gimp (Nicer one than the Ubuntu version), SuperTux, Battle for Wesnoth, Firefox, and BZFlag all installed in windows.
Um, excuse me!? Where is the incentive for a 14 year old to run Linux if people are porting all of the apps to windows?

[karellen]

Don't get the title wrong. I've been using linux for some time and I know there's alot of advantages (I can open up a lot of apps at the same time for one) but there's something that's bothering me.
I installed windows (after years of not having it) on a separate partition, thinking my son would use it for certain games he couldn't play in linux and switch back to linux to play what he couldn't play in windows.
Nice theory.
He's got Open Office, Gimp (Nicer one than the Ubuntu version), SuperTux, Battle for Wesnoth, Firefox, and BZFlag all installed in windows.
Um, excuse me!? Where is the incentive for a 14 year old to run Linux if people are porting all of the apps to windows?

why should there be an incentive? not all Linux apps are ported to Windows, but I agree that most (and maybe best) of them are, for obvious reasons (like the 90%+ market share Windows currently has)

[ronnielsen1]

why should there be an incentive? not all Linux apps are ported to Windows, but I agree that most (and maybe best) of them are, for obvious reasons (like the 90%+ market share Windows currently has)

Because the more users involved the more companies seem to invest time porting to linux.
It's not just gaming but it's improved significately in the past few years
To maybe break off a little bit of that 90% + share

[Canis familiaris]

I am sorry but being selfish and not porting our apps will not really promote Linux.
The aim of Open Source Software is to give services to more people not to get maximum users.

[3rdalbum]

Think of it the other way: If people start using open-source software on Windows, when the time comes to dump Windows they won't have any problems adjusting.

[DeadSuperHero]

I am sorry but being selfish and not porting our apps will not really promote Linux.
The aim of Open Source Software is to give services to more people not to get maximum users.

Think about this, though: why does it really matter what OS someone's child uses? Does it really affect your life?

I think it doesn't. Let the kid use what he wants for pete's sake. He's a human being, and should be allowed to make his own decisions, without being chastised for not using what you do.

[ronnielsen1]

I think it doesn't. Let the kid use what he wants for pete's sake. He's a human being, and should be allowed to make his own decisions, without being chastised for not using what you do.
It's not like that. Just looking at it wrong. Seemed like Linux wasn't making any headway and I know that's not true. Like Anurag_Panda says, it's kind of looking at it in a selfish way - wanting more.

[Canis familiaris]

Think about this, though: why does it really matter what OS someone's child uses? Does it really affect your life?

I think it doesn't. Let the kid use what he wants for pete's sake. He's a human being, and should be allowed to make his own decisions, without being chastised for not using what you do.

Is that addressed to me? Then I agree to you. But I don't get it why is this addressed to me. :???:

[SomeGuyDude]

It's worth mentioning that GIMP, OpenOffice, et al were made as open-source replacements for commercial software. I really, really can't think of a good reason to run them on Windows because, frankly, Photoshop and MS Office 2007 are just better.

Besides, the reason I run Linux isn't because of the really attractive software. Matter of fact there isn't a single app that Linux has that would make me switch over on its own merits.

[SomeGuyDude]

Think about this, though: why does it really matter what OS someone's child uses? Does it really affect your life?

I think it doesn't. Let the kid use what he wants for pete's sake. He's a human being, and should be allowed to make his own decisions, without being chastised for not using what you do.

I'm... pretty sure no one's chastizing the kid, just ruminating on the allure of Linux when all of its apps have Window versions. :confused:

[Canis familiaris]

It's worth mentioning that GIMP, OpenOffice, et al were made as open-source replacements for commercial software. I really, really can't think of a good reason to run them on Windows because, frankly, Photoshop and MS Office 2007 are just better.

You can afford Photoshop, MS Office does not mean others can also afford it.
Seriously GIMP and OO.org are FREE and do most of the job. Does some one who just types occassional memos need to spend $$$?

[smartboyathome]

In the same vein of this thread, why should anyone port their programs to Linux? Why should manufacturers even give drivers for Linux? After all, we're still only a spec on the computer market. If you don't want anything from Linux for Windows, then take away the cross platform apps for Linux and see how you feel. That is, no Firefox, no Opera, no GIMP, no OpenOffice.org, no Pidgin, no to a lot of games, etc. See how useful Linux is after you do that.

[SomeGuyDude]

You can afford Photoshop, MS Office does not mean others can also afford it.
Seriously GIMP and OO.org are FREE and do most of the job. Does some one who just types occassional memos need to spend $$$?

But that's what I mean. They're replacements for the open source community. They do most of the job and are free, they're not better on their own merits. If I handed a Windows user a CD for OOo and one for MS Office, the odds of them picking OOo are pretty nil.

My basic point is that the porting of Linux software to Windows makes no difference because the software available for Linux isn't intended to draw people from Windows, rather it's there to assure Windows users that when they port over they can still do what they need to. Someone sitting with Windows isn't going to look at a screenshot of GIMP or OpenOffice and go "man I need to switch to Linux and get me some of that!"

The Linux allure is on the system's merits, not the software on it. I really like all the applications, but there's no mistaking that almost every big-time piece of Linux software is intended to give people an alternative to the Windows software we already know, or it's a direct port.

Audacious/XMMS -> Winamp
Exaile/Amarok -> iTunes
OpenOffice -> MS Office
GIMP -> Photoshop
Avidemux -> Windows Movie Maker
MPlayer/VLC -> WMP

And so on (my software usage is pretty limited, I know there's a lot more). Heck there's even WINE, tacitly admitting that we need to give people a way to use all the software they're used to.

People use Windows for the software and forgive the OS for its shortcomings. People use Linux for the OS and forgive the software for its shortcomings, y'know?

[sokopok]

Linux and Open Source is about freedom, isn't it? Whoever prefers using Windows, that's their choice. I'd hate to force someone to use Linux, where's the freedom in that. Adopting the methods op people/corporations you detest isn't going to do any good.

[Sorivenul]

I really, really can't think of a good reason to run them on Windows because, frankly, Photoshop and MS Office 2007 are just better.
I find your posts interesting, and can somewhat agree with a statement like this from a professional standpoint (but not a personal one). MS Office 2007 is quite possibly one of the least intuitive pieces of software I've used, especially for MS software. This, however, is not the place to get into heuristics and GUI design.

@OP:
The simple answer is for the experience. It's part of why I switched and why my wife has continued to try Linux.

[smoker]

The Linux allure is on the system's merits, not the software on it...

...People use Windows for the software and forgive the OS for its shortcomings. People use Linux for the OS and forgive the software for its shortcomings, y'know?

so true.

[SomeGuyDude]

I find your posts interesting, and can somewhat agree with a statement like this from a professional standpoint (but not a personal one). MS Office 2007 is quite possibly one of the least intuitive pieces of software I've used, especially for MS software. This, however, is not the place to get into heuristics and GUI design.

Admittedly a lot of THAT is personal taste. There's a reason OOo3 doesn't adopt the Office 2007 appearance and instead just builds on the XP look, I suppose.

It reminds me of a thread on the Community Cafe board asking what Linux's "killer app" was that would pull everyone away from Windows and no one could really think of one. Some suggested Amarok, but the closest I think anyone came was Compiz just because the eye candy is apt to attract people to Linux more than goofy things like "uses less resources".

And that's just it. Linux has no killer app. It's not like OSX where people flock to it so they can use the iSuite and the myriad admittedly quality apps Apple has that integrate so well. People use Linux to use Linux. Think about how many people drifted over before all the alternatives to popular software existed.

I'm sure someday more software will be made natively, and Linux will get its "killer app", but for now it doesn't bother me at all that you can get GIMP on Windows, it's not going to prevent anyone from switching because the lack of it on Windows wasn't going to CAUSE any switching.

[cardinals_fan]

Um, excuse me!? Where is the incentive for a 14 year old to run Linux if people are porting all of the apps to windows?
I can use a tiling window manager, a package management system, some Linux-only apps (like Qalculate), multiple distros, and I've just found zsh better natively rather than running through cygwin.

[TransitMan]

I ran a Windows OS of one flavor or another for years. The cost associated with the additional programs was becoming an issue for me, with 4 different computers to keep up. I eventually turned to Free Open Source software designed for the Windows platform.
While my costs for the programs I needed went down, the cost of the OS itself was still outragous.
So at the end of 2005, I went to a Linux distro, after trying several Live-CD versions. I ended up here, with Ubuntu and its many different DE's.
Granted, the "plug 'n play" of a Windows OS wasn't there anymore, but the stability of the OS, the cost - FREE, as well as a number of the Free Open Source software that I was using in Windows and now available to me in Linux, made my transition all the easier.

If a 14 year old wants to run a Windows OS with an assortment of Free Open Source software, then let it be. They will decide when they are old enough and wiser if they want to support money driven programs or embrace the change to Free Software and OSes. And instead of demeaning them, support them in a positive way whenever possible, and try to introduce them to the complete Open Software of programs and OSes. But don't force. It will not work. I know, I tried with a member of my household.

But to the original question, why port Free Open Source to Windows OSes? Because it can be done and the GNU licenses do not prohibit it. Besides, having a program ported to Windows may eventually lead those that use it to Linux.

Keep the faith.

[Vorian Grey]

I may be wrong but to me open source is about free (as in speech and choice) software, not about Linux. It can run on any platform the developer wishes it to.

[cmat]

why should there be an incentive? not all Linux apps are ported to Windows, but I agree that most (and maybe best) of them are, for obvious reasons (like the 90%+ market share Windows currently has)

This is the reason why most the applications I make are ported to Windows. Like it or not it's a Windows world.

[Keyper7]

I may be wrong but to me open source is about free (as in speech and choice) software, not about Linux. It can run on any platform the developer wishes it to.

Open source is about giving the source along with the software. Free software is about allowing who uses the software to also modify it and redistribute it. None of those two things involve the obligation of making it so it runs on any platform.

[darrelljon]

I run software (open source or closed source Windows apps via WINE) on Linux rather than Windows - because Linux is more secure and I don't need to activate each install or buy multiple licenses for multiple machines.

[smartboyathome]

Open source is about giving the source along with the software. Free software is about allowing who uses the software to also modify it and redistribute it. None of those two things involve the obligation of making it so it runs on any platform.

No, open source free software gives you the source and allows you to install and run it on any platform you wish. If you restricted people to one platform, it wouldn't be free, now would it? The freedom spreads to everything, from redistributing and modifying to what you can run it on and how you run it.

[MaxIBoy]

I am sorry but being selfish and not porting our apps will not really promote Linux.
The aim of Open Source Software is to give services to more people not to get maximum users.

+quite a few