A different OSS / Proprietary question...

[Master Shake]

A question that I have had in my mind for awhile about the whole OSS/ Proprietary debate...

The CNR thread debate seems to be centered on Proprietary software released on linux. What do you feel on OSS software released for Mac OS or Windows? Tux Racer, The Gimp, Abi Word, Open Office, et. al. all have windows equivalents. What's the thought on this?

[Iandefor]

I think it's great. More OSS to the masses, basically. There aren't that many Linux users in the world, and giving people who use mainstream OS's access to OSS is a good thing. That's one of the nice things about OSS: everybody can use it, and if everybody can't, it won't take long before they can.

[jc87]

A question that I have had in my mind for awhile about the whole OSS/ Proprietary debate...

The CNR thread debate seems to be centered on Proprietary software released on linux. What do you feel on OSS software released for Mac OS or Windows? Tux Racer, The Gimp, Abi Word, Open Office, et. al. all have windows equivalents. What's the thought on this?

Good ?

OOO is a good example , that way windows users aren´t forced to use M$ office .

A little freedom is better than no freedom at all , and it is one more way to bring them to the light side of the force , first hook them on our software , then will be more easy convince them to use the rest of it ....

[Kernel Sanders]

A question that I have had in my mind for awhile about the whole OSS/ Proprietary debate...

The CNR thread debate seems to be centered on Proprietary software released on linux. What do you feel on OSS software released for Mac OS or Windows? Tux Racer, The Gimp, Abi Word, Open Office, et. al. all have windows equivalents. What's the thought on this?

I think the OSS in Windows/Mac get nailed by their proprietary counterparts.

Office 2003 is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Open Office for example.

This lessens demand for the generally considered "inferior OSS" products, and that is why only small almost insignificant OSS products ever make any headway into the windows/mac markets.

OSS IMHO is at its most successfull on an open source OS like Linux. That is why I am so against proprietary software in Linux, it will end up stifeling innovation and ultimately development.

John

[aysiu]

I don't see what the difference is.

97% of the users on these forums use a Free operating system and non-Free software/codecs.

How is that any different from using a non-Free operating system and Free software?

[DrFunkenstein]

I think the OSS in Windows/Mac get nailed by their proprietary counterparts.

Office 2003 is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Open Office for example.

No, it isn't, at least not in my experience and you really seem to have an amazingly low opinion of OSS software, to put it mildly.



This lessens demand for the generally considered "inferior OSS" products, and that is why only small almost insignificant OSS products ever make any headway into the windows/mac markets.

You mean like firefox and apache for example?
Oh and the whole base of OSX is OSS btw.

[mstlyevil]

I think the OSS in Windows/Mac get nailed by their proprietary counterparts.

Office 2003 is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Open Office for example.

This lessens demand for the generally considered "inferior OSS" products, and that is why only small almost insignificant OSS products ever make any headway into the windows/mac markets.

OSS IMHO is at its most successfull on an open source OS like Linux. That is why I am so against proprietary software in Linux, it will end up stifeling innovation and ultimately development.

John

Not to fork the thread John but competition between OSS and proprietary products drive both platforms to be better and is better for everyone. It does not stiffle innovation on either platform but encourages it because now you have to differentiate yourself from the other to effectively compete. Firefox and IE are examples of this. Mozilla has put a lot of time and effort to make a great browser to compete with IE. That spurred a quick adoption of it by even a lot of non techies and cut into IE's market share. MSFT has now responded by making IE7 and is incorporating many of the features of FF plus adding new ones. Mozilla plans to answer that with the release later this year of FF 2.0. It will have a bunch of new improvements and features that IE will not have. This is a win win for the consumer who no matter which browser they prefer they will get a improved product.

I guess this is not off topic as I thought it was going to be. That is why OSS for Windows is a good thing. The improvements from competition filter into Linux so even the pure free software people benefit.

[Kernel Sanders]

The only thing I will say about the firefox example is that as IE was allowed to basically "stagnate" for so many years, it was not hard for Firefox to swoop in and take some of its market share. IE has been crap for years.

Microsofts response? IE7. So Firefox, was, in this case, good for getting Microsoft to stop resting on their laurels, and helped development in the browser market.

BUT..... you'd be surprised at the number of people loving IE7, and by this I mean FIREFOX USERS loving IE7 so much, that they intend to switch back!

So when IE7 for XP goes final, and Vista is released, firefox are going to take a hit....... a big one!

For what i've seen, I dont really see anything in Firefox 2.0 that will stop this.

So, watch how proprietary software in this case will have a detrimental effect on its Open Source alternative.

John

EDIT: Which is a real shame because I love firefox....... :cry:

[mstlyevil]

The only thing I will say about the firefox example is that as IE was allowed to basically "stagnate" for so many years, it was not hard for Firefox to swoop in and take some of its market share. IE has been crap for years.

Microsofts response? IE7. So Firefox, was, in this case, good for getting Microsoft to stop resting on their laurels, and helped development in the browser market.

BUT..... you'd be surprised at the number of people loving IE7, and by this I mean FIREFOX USERS loving IE7 so much, that they intend to switch back!

So when IE7 for XP goes final, and Vista is released, firefox are going to take a hit....... a big one!

For what i've seen, I dont really see anything in Firefox 2.0 that will stop this.

So, watch how proprietary software in this case will have a detrimental effect on its Open Source alternative.

John

Have you ever studied how market economics works? So what if a few people switch back to IE7. Many of those people will run right back to Firefox when 2.0 is released to get some new feature not in IE7. I also have heard from many people testing the IE7 Beta complaining it is crap and they will switch to Firefox. You are just plain wrong on this but you will not set aside your feelings for five minutes to think about the benefits of open competition in the market place.

[Kernel Sanders]

I'm a Marketing and Economics graduate...... :cool:

I have my opinion, and I do have a clear reason why I believe this to be so, but does that make me right? Hell no........

Does that automatically make you right? Hell no.......

The truth is, as far as the software market goes, it is pretty much unpredictible, I wouldnt be surprised if something happened to make us both wrong! :)

Take Ubuntu...... who could have predicted that a Multi Millionaire would step in and create a Distro that overnight (in relitive terms) would turn the whole Linux movement on its head?

All we will ever have is supposition.

My opinions do ultimately stem from idealism, so I apologise if thats mildely annoying! :mrgreen:

All the best!

John

[aysiu]

BUT..... you'd be surprised at the number of people loving IE7, and by this I mean FIREFOX USERS loving IE7 so much, that they intend to switch back! I won't believe it until I see a Ubuntu Forums poll of people who've tried IE7 and who've voted that they intend to switch back.

I initially switched to Firefox for tabbed browser and "better security," but I've eventually stuck with it because of its other features and mainly its extensions. IE7 has nothing on Firefox extensions, and it never will.

[mstlyevil]

It is not as much annoying as it is frustrating. Idealism is fine but it should never be allowed to cloud your judgement. I can almost guarantee that something new will happen in the future that will shake up both the FOSS and the proprietary world just as Firefox and Ubuntu both have done.

[BWF89]

Since Windows makes up around 94% of the desktop market porting as much open source software to it as possible not only improves the software but keeps the users of those proprietary operating systems from spending hundreds on commercial software that takes away their rights.

Perhapse someone could add a poll to this thread.

[DrFunkenstein]

Since Windows makes up around 94% of the desktop market porting as much open source software to it as possible not only improves the software but keeps the users of those proprietary operating systems from spending hundreds on commercial software that takes away their rights.

Ah, but isn't this exactly the point where one could argue that improving windows is not in the interest of free software in the long run?

[mostwanted]

Ah, but isn't this exactly the point where one could argue that improving windows is not in the interest of free software in the long run?

If it gets to the point where all the software people use is open source anyway, there's less incentive for them to stay on Windows.

[aysiu]

If it gets to the point where all the software people use is open source anyway, there's less incentive for them to stay on Windows. For example, if the only applications someone uses on Windows are GAIM, OpenOffice, GIMP, Firefox, and Thunderbird, how hard is it, then, to migrate to Ubuntu?

[DrFunkenstein]

If it gets to the point where all the software people use is open source anyway, there's less incentive for them to stay on Windows.
Hm, I wouldn't be so sure there. If one can get all the open source/free software for windows anyway and on top of that also run a platform that has by far the most propietary apps available, why should one choose to switch platforms exactly?

[aysiu]

Hm, I wouldn't be so sure there. If one can get all the open source/free software for windows anyway and on top of that also run a platform that has by far the most propietary apps available, why should one choose to switch platforms exactly? Because some people don't believe in pirating and they're cheapskates, so they won't buy Vista or some new Windows upgrade. Maybe they like the freedom of not having to "activate" a new installation every time.

[DrFunkenstein]

Because some people don't believe in pirating and they're cheapskates, so they won't buy Vista or some new Windows upgrade. Maybe they like the freedom of not having to "activate" a new installation every time.
Certainly, but these reasons also would hold true without free software being available for windows, wouldn't they?

[aysiu]

Certainly, but these reasons also would hold true without free software being available for windows, wouldn't they? It just makes the transition easier.

[DrFunkenstein]

It just makes the transition easier.
Yes, for some, but it also would make staying on windows easier.

[aysiu]

Yes, for some, but it also would make staying on windows easier. So you're saying that if open source applications were exclusive to open source operating system, people would be leaving Windows in troves to migrate to Ubuntu and other Linux distros?

[DrFunkenstein]

So you're saying that if open source applications were exclusive to open source operating system, people would be leaving Windows in troves to migrate to Ubuntu and other Linux distros?
No, I asked if the argument couldn't be made that providing a lot of open source software for windows improves windows and in this way hinders the adoption of other platforms, as people have less reason to make the change.

[aysiu]

No, I asked if the argument couldn't be made that providing a lot of open source software for windows improves windows and in this way hinders the adoption of other platforms, as people have less reason to make the change. But this phrase would indicate that not having those open source applications on Windows would encourage people to change to Linux... which is what I asked in my previous post.

[DrFunkenstein]

But this phrase would indicate that not having those open source applications on Windows would encourage people to change to Linux...
which is what I asked in my previous post.
No, it doesn't indicate that at all.

[tageiru]

Yes, for some, but it also would make staying on windows easier.
So if a user only uses free open source software, why should he pay for Windows when the exact same software runs on a free operating system?

I think that would be a hard sell for Microsoft.

But then again, free software has never been about market share. Its about creating software that respects the users freedom. Windows users need some of that love ;)

[DrFunkenstein]

So if a user only uses free open source software, why should he pay for Windows when the exact same software runs on a free operating system?

I think that would be a hard sell for Microsoft.
You are right. But I think that users using both free and propietary software at the same time are far more common than users using free software exlusively on windows.

[aysiu]

No, it doesn't indicate that at all. There are two scenarios we're discussing here:

1. No open source apps for Windows. They're on Linux instead.
You're saying this is a good thing since people won't be as comfortable staying on Windows because they'll all think, "Hey, all the open source stuff is on Linux. I'd better switch."

2. There are open source apps for Windows. You're saying this is a bad thing because people will want to stay with the OS they're already using and want to use open source apps, so they'll think, "I love open source applications. Good thing I can use them on my proprietary operating system."

The assumption you have is that ordinary users recognize the intrinsic value of open source software without having used it. I don't see what would be so appealing to Windows users about software they can't use on Windows. Why would they want to leave Windows to use open source applications they've never used before on an operating system they've never used before?

[BWF89]

[B]
For example, if the only applications someone uses on Windows are GAIM, OpenOffice, GIMP, Firefox, and Thunderbird, how hard is it, then, to migrate to Ubuntu?
That's like exactly the situation I'm in right now. Since open soure apps have been ported to Windows. Except for a few things here and there the only apps I've been useing for the last year have been cross-platform ones. I like the idea that I can use the same app on my Linux box (which I get on the 9th), my parents Windows box, or I could reccomend a program I like to use to a friend whether they are useing Win, Mac, or *nix.

[DrFunkenstein]

There are two scenarios we're discussing here:

Actually, there are a lot more possible scenarios, as it could be argued that having some free software available is a good thing.
For example, I'm pretty sure having firefox available for windows is also great for linux as it certainly helps getting those annoying only works with IE websites out of the way.



1. No open source apps for Windows. They're on Linux instead.
You're saying this is a good thing since people won't be as comfortable staying on Windows because they'll all think, "Hey, all the open source stuff is on Linux. I'd better switch."
I think you are misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that no open source software at all should be available. And stating that having all open source software available for windows does improve windows, so that people don't have an incentive to switch does not equal stating that people would switch to Linux "because they'll all think, "Hey, all the open source stuff is on Linux. I'd better switch.""



2. There are open source apps for Windows. You're saying this is a bad thing because people will want to stay with the OS they're already using and want to use open source apps, so they'll think, "I love open source applications. Good thing I can use them on my proprietary operating system."

Again you are misrepresenting what I said. I never even talked about the motivation why people use free software and I certainly didn't imply they do it because they love open source, but want to stay on a propietary system. Really, I don't see why you feel the need to try to misrepresent what I said, when what I said was actually very clear.


The assumption you have is that ordinary users recognize the intrinsic value of open source software without having used it.
No, this is not my assumption and it certainly can't even be constructed as to being my underlying assumption from what I said.

[BoyOfDestiny]

A question that I have had in my mind for awhile about the whole OSS/ Proprietary debate...

The CNR thread debate seems to be centered on Proprietary software released on linux. What do you feel on OSS software released for Mac OS or Windows? Tux Racer, The Gimp, Abi Word, Open Office, et. al. all have windows equivalents. What's the thought on this?

I think it's great. Firstly it shows off some serious portability. Next, it made my move to Linux much much easier. 99% of my favorite apps are here. Gimp, OOo, privoxy, gaim, zsnes, dosbox, firefox, thunderbird, the list goes on... No need for windows, and it's gone :)

Anyway, the only downside I can think of is when some OSS apps are windows only (my bias as a fulltime linux user now). I like mulitplatform. A good chance you can use your app on different OS and architectures, just seems more viable to me.

[Iandefor]

I'm not certain if the issue of adoption of Linux matters to me. If somebody wants to use it on a closed platform, let them; this just encourages the adoption of OSS. What I see happening is that people who like OSS and who get introduced to it via Windows tend to be not so leery about moving to Linux.

Anyways, by the very nature of OSS, you can't restrict any single group from using it.
Eventually somebody will come along and modify the code so that they can use it.