Should Open Source Apps Run on Windows?

[professor_chaos]

I'm reading the August issuse of LinuxWorld and theres an interesting discussion regarding whether Open Source Applications should run on Windows.

One argument: Allowing the windows community to benifit from open source and maybe free software will not provoke them to move to and open OS.

Another: Open source software would act more as a catalyst, and all will benifit.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting topic and thought I would get some opinions from this community.

[aysiu]

I can see why the question would come up.

On the one hand, it would be better for Linux because if people did migrate to an open OS, all their "familiar" applications would just be there ("See? There's GIMP. There's Firefox. There are all the familiars.").

On the other hand, if you can get all the open source apps in Windows, you can't draw people to Linux with the promise of free software ("I can get all those free apps in Windows"). Sadly, some of the free apps (Firefox, for example) are actually designed better for Windows than for Linux.

[Takis]

One argument: Allowing the windows community to benifit from open source and maybe free software will not provoke them to move to and open OS.
We don't want to 'provoke' people into doing anything. We're not against Windows, or the Windows user community (and if we are, we shouldn't be). It's a negatively-inclined argument - what the FOSS community is about is the promotion of open source, not the demotion of closed source.

[bob_c_b]

I think we generate more discussion and momentum when people see FireFox and OpenOffice and how great they are, best way to show people a free OS can be better than Windows is to show them other alternatives to other apps first.

[darkmatter]

Yes, OSS should run on Windows.

That way we can be sure that it'll run on ReactOS... :razz:

[poofyhairguy]

Yes. Why not?

[arnieboy]

some people might be surprised to know the number of open source softwares already available on windows.
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/ is a good pointer

[aysiu]

some people might be surprised to know the number of open source softwares already available on windows.
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/ is a good pointer My personal favorite is FileZilla.

[Phantasman]

Sure, why not. You gotta think things like Open Office has hurt MS Office sales a little.

[az]

The question misses the point.

The source code is available to any user on any platform who is able to compile it. You cannot compile and run the linux kernel on windows, but you can install cygwin and install and run a lot of stuff on windows, including X.

Microsoft can even take all the upstream source code they can find, precompile it and distribute it along with their next version of windows. They must respect the clauses of the GPL, in that case, THAT IS THE POINT!

[skoal]

some people might be surprised to know the number of open source softwares already available on windows.
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/ is a good pointer
That's some good linkage. I know I've ran across one or two before...

What may be ironic is when more and more OSS apps are ported (or developed) onto Win platforms, those open source apps may very well be the one catalyst which spurs more interest in Windows. It would be like, um (pun intended), opening a window in a musty old room...

\\//_

[macgyver2]

...what the FOSS community is about is the promotion of open source, not the demotion of closed source.


The source code is available to any user on any platform who is able to compile it. You cannot compile and run the linux kernel on windows, but you can install cygwin and install and run a lot of stuff on windows, including X.

Microsoft can even take all the upstream source code they can find, precompile it and distribute it along with their next version of windows. They must respect the clauses of the GPL, in that case, THAT IS THE POINT!
I guess my comment is an extension of these posts...

Basically, if you don't allow the possibility that an open-source app might be run on Windows, then it wouldn't really be open-source.

[BWF89]

Sure, why not. You gotta think things like Open Office has hurt MS Office sales a little.
It kept my family from spending $150 on it.

[YourSurrogateGod]

To be honest, there are a number of apps out there that are open sourced and running on windows. Mozilla/Firefox and OpenOffice are the ones that stand out imo.

[drizek]

I can see why the question would come up.
Sadly, some of the free apps (Firefox, for example) are actually designed better for Windows than for Linux.


thats exactly why i am so against moving OSS to windows. it will hurt linuxin the end.

there is a reason why the gnome team had to make their own browser and why KDE uses konqueror.

IMO, there should be a modifed GPL that would say that the software can only be compiled, installed and run on a free platform. that way people wont "steal" the sourcecode of someone who is against having their app ported to windows and then make a windows port of it.

OSS can never reach its full potential as long as MS and other monopolistic money hungry companies are around. porting the best linux apps to windows will be the end of opensource.

[aysiu]

IMO, there should be a modifed GPL that would say that the software can only be compiled, installed and run on a free platform. that way people wont "steal" the sourcecode of someone who is against having their app ported to windows and then make a windows port of it. Well, that was the big controversy when KDE came out, because it was built on non-free (QT?) stuff. That's why Gnome even came about. People were determined to have a desktop environment that was totally "free." Eventually, KDE worked out an arrangement where they could be "free," too, but it took the pressure from the Gnome people.

You'll always have big debates over some free and completely free.

You can read more about the history of KDE and Gnome here (http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/KDE_v_Gnome_history)

[drizek]

thanks for the link.

but QT is not the same as MS. the argument against qt was just idealogical really. trolltech was not a monopoly and it did not have bad intentions. they just wanted to make money, there is nothing wrong with that. but MS is evil.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Interest in open source software in windows is what moved me to linux. My favorite apps are multi platform.

They can run in windows, linux, mac, and other os's like amiga, qnx, etc.
I think that is very important in terms of longevity of the software.

Remember in certain enviroments you won't get an os choice, it's nice to have some of your favorite applications available.

Also, it makes great propaganda, in the case of things like VLC, open office, firefox, privoxy, zsnes, etc etc.

People are often amazed, "wow that's open source software".

Considering what the general pc magazines and MS propaganda produce, the proof is in the pudding. I'm not dissapointed, nor are my family and friends.

[earobinson]

this should have been made a poll, and yes it should, the whole idea of open source is that some one can take it and adapt it to there own use (and if this dont include cross platform then i think that the idea of open source is failing).

Also note that while some users may say 'i can get all this free software for windows so why convert' others (me for example and why i switched to linux) may think 'wow i got all this really good open source free software i wonder what else is out there.

[Ampersand]

I think we rely on windows ports of open source software to a certain extent. If firefox didn't run on windows, the proportion of people using IE would be higher, possibly making it harder to convince web designers to conform with standards. Same goes for open office, probably.

[benplaut]

which would you rather have? them using MS Office and IE because nothing else exists, or OO.org and firefox, simply becuase they can, and they should.

sure, they aren't using linux, but that's about the same argument about cloning the XP interface... would you rather have them using XPde or Windows? I thought so. :roll:

[weasel fierce]

I dont see why open source software should not run on windows. Being elitist seems to entirely miss the point of open source

[Knome_fan]

I remember that there was quite a debate about this issue last year, started by an article by Aaron Seigo: How to kill open source on the desktop (http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2004/12/how-to-kill-open-source-on-desktop.html)

I think it's well worth the read and might clear up some misconceptions people seem to have about this debate.

[benplaut]

I remember that there was quite a debate about this issue last year, started by an article by Aaron Seigo: How to kill open source on the desktop (http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2004/12/how-to-kill-open-source-on-desktop.html)

I think it's well worth the read and might clear up some misconceptions people seem to have about this debate.

vvveeerrryyy long, but a good read...

i'll discuss more in the mornin :roll:

[agger]

thanks for the link.

but QT is not the same as MS. the argument against qt was just idealogical really. trolltech was not a monopoly and it did not have bad intentions. they just wanted to make money, there is nothing wrong with that. but MS is evil.

No, this is silly: There is not really any such thing as "evil", and Microsoft is definitely not it (even though they do exploit their monopoly to squash competition if they get the chance). As much as I might dislike M$ and their software and their business methods, "evil" is clearly over the mark.

That being said, a modified GPL which restricted the kind of operating you could use would be discriminatiory and would not really be free software (in the same sense that it is not allowed to restrict software from, e.g., military use if you want it to be considered "free").

So even if the author of a free program might not care to port it to Windows, everybody's free to do it if they like.

I think it's pretty much unavoidable - I even think it's kinda great. People can start using free software without taking the "dive" into Linux. Monopolies and restrictions are the Windows way to do things.

[Kvark]

Yes, FOSS apps should run on Windows. Because it's all about freedom, even freedom to use it on Windows if you want to. Thats the way a software app does the biggest possible amount of good for the biggest possible group of people.



Also I think it would hurt propriarity software a lot if people used FOSS apps on Windows. People would never pay for a web browser unless it came with the computer. Because IE comes with the computer and there are several gratis alternatives out there. The same is true for other areas where there are widespread gratis alternatives.

If Open Office would become more wide spread among Windows users then people wouldn't pay for office suits either unless it came with the computer. Each gratis program that becomes wide spread on the Windows platform and each program that comes preinstalled on Windows computers makes it a lot harder for competing programs to make money on restrictive licences. The FOSS way of making money would still be valid though since it relies on selling services and such rather then copies of the actual application.

A world where people don't switch to GNU/Linux because "I can get all those free apps in Windows" would also be a world where the only way make people pay for software is to have it preinstalled on new computers. In such a world a lot of companies that make money on propriarity software today would be forced to start making money in the FOSS way instead.

[egon spengler]

To me the idea that if you create a Windows program you should not be "allowed" to release the souce seems crazy. When I used Windows there was never the emphasis on being OSS that there is with Linux but there are some good, Windows only open source programs the main which sticks out in my mind being Litestep. Litestep would have died a very long time ago were it not released as open source which enabled the community to keep it alive. Surely that is the perfect example right there of one of the key benefits of OSS.

Also as someone else mentioned open standards are also vitally important and Firefox on Windows plays a massive role in encouraging web designers to follow the W3C recommendations instead of just lazily following the Microsoft de facto standards. The Linux user base alone would not be large enough to make this kind of difference (also I thought that from the Phoenix days Firefox was always cross platform, meaning that it always as much a Windows program as a Linux one)

[BWF89]

I can see why the question would come up.
Sadly, some of the free apps (Firefox, for example) are actually designed better for Windows than for Linux.
I heard somewhere that in a few version Firefox is going to stop relying on some sort of technology infavor of another that works just as well on Linux as it does Windows.

[aysiu]

I remember that there was quite a debate about this issue last year, started by an article by Aaron Seigo: How to kill open source on the desktop (http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2004/12/how-to-kill-open-source-on-desktop.html)

I think it's well worth the read and might clear up some misconceptions people seem to have about this debate. That was my point in the original post. If you can have ice cream at home, why go out for it?

Let's make something else clear, though--nobody is arguing "Let's restrict through some kind of law or rule people's porting of open source apps to Windows." Of course if they're truly open source apps, you can't stop anyone from porting them to Windows.

I think the real debate isn't about stopping people from making open source apps for Windows. The real debate is about starting to make open source apps for Windows "ourselves" (I don't really program or make apps, so I'm using "we" lightly here to mean the Linux community). Ports to Windows don't just happen. Someone has to make that port. So the question is "Should people make the effort to create Windows ports?" not "Can we stop them from doing so?"

In my opinion, open source apps should be on Windows for familiarity's sake, but their Linux counterparts should function better. It's a real shame that Mozilla's products are half-ass on Linux but fully functional in Windows--even simple things like having control-# select the # tab doesn't happen in Linux's Firefox; we have to use alt-# to do that but control-something to do everything else.

Ultimately, it's up to developers, but if I had my say, I'd say put most of your efforts into open source apps for Linux. Windows ports could happen or not happen.

[xequence]

Is it just me or do open source applications already run on windows? Firefox, The GImp, Openoffice.org...

[drizek]

That was my point in the original post. If you can have ice cream at home, why go out for it?

Let's make something else clear, though--nobody is arguing "Let's restrict through some kind of law or rule people's porting of open source apps to Windows." Of course if they're truly open source apps, you can't stop anyone from porting them to Windows.

I think the real debate isn't about stopping people from making open source apps for Windows. The real debate is about starting to make open source apps for Windows "ourselves" (I don't really program or make apps, so I'm using "we" lightly here to mean the Linux community). Ports to Windows don't just happen. Someone has to make that port. So the question is "Should people make the effort to create Windows ports?" not "Can we stop them from doing so?"

In my opinion, open source apps should be on Windows for familiarity's sake, but their Linux counterparts should function better. It's a real shame that Mozilla's products are half-ass on Linux but fully functional in Windows--even simple things like having control-# select the # tab doesn't happen in Linux's Firefox; we have to use alt-# to do that but control-something to do everything else.

Ultimately, it's up to developers, but if I had my say, I'd say put most of your efforts into open source apps for Linux. Windows ports could happen or not happen.

the reason why aseigo brought it up is because its not possible ATM to port KDE apps to windows. but with qt4, the windows version will be opensource and look very good in terms of using native widgets. personally, i agree with him. i do know that the amarok devs arent going to be porting it to windows, but wont mind someone else doing so.

Another thing,

OSS on windows is not just about porting linux apps. thats stupid. instead of porting linux apps, we should be trying to convince windows developers to open up their sourcecode. not only would this mean that FOSS would start to become more popular on windows, it would also improve linux by making more apps available to it. This shouldnt just be a one-way charity. And im not talking about telling MS to make office opensource, im just talking about the freeware apps that are made by a couple of people for the fun of it. we need to explain to them the benefits of opensource. right now, when a windows user thinks about making an a, they immediatly think closed source. why? they dont know any better. educating windows users about FOSS is going to be much more beneficial than just porting apps to windows.

[TravisNewman]

Windows vs Linux vs Mac is a tired argument and a pointless one. I'm going to say something that may be hard to swallow...
THERE IS NO COMPETITION.

Open source is about choice, about making a high quality product that anyone can enjoy, and if that includes a Windows version, that's just more people who have access to it. Open source is not about getting market share, or about shutting out other platforms. If you shut out windows from open source, you're using those lock-in techniques that you complain about MS using all the time.

What kind of a question is that really? Of course they should run on Windows, if they were written to.

[Knome_fan]

I'm going to say something that may be hard to swallow...
THERE IS NO COMPETITION.
This is really hard to swallow, because it doesn't make sense. If you want Gnome, KDE whater to become a valid desktop platform for "normal users" you automatically enter into a competition with Windows.



Open source is about choice, about making a high quality product that anyone can enjoy, and if that includes a Windows version, that's just more people who have access to it.

Open source is about many different things to many different people, so I fail to see your point. For some people open source, or rather free software is certainly about a lot more than simply about choice, so I don't think you have much of a point here.



Open source is not about getting market share, or about shutting out other platforms. If you shut out windows from open source, you're using those lock-in techniques that you complain about MS using all the time.

Again, nobody is talking about shuting out Windows (at least not that I'm aware of), the question is, should open source developers port their software to windows or not and what are the consequences of doing it or not doing it.



What kind of a question is that really? Of course they should run on Windows, if they were written to.
Indeed, that would be a silly question. I'm just glad noone apart from you asked it. ;-D

[drizek]

Windows vs Linux vs Mac is a tired argument and a pointless one. I'm going to say something that may be hard to swallow...
THERE IS NO COMPETITION.

tell that to the bastards trying to wipe opensource, ubuntu and this forum off the face of this planet.

[escuchamezz]

Windows vs Linux vs Mac is a tired argument and a pointless one. I'm going to say something that may be hard to swallow...
THERE IS NO COMPETITION.


when Windows is taking up 95% of the market of course there's no competition, although in theory mac os should easily rival it while linux can probably rival windows 95

[aysiu]

Open source is not about getting market share, or about shutting out other platforms. No one's trying to "shut out" anything. I'm talking about developers spending extra energy to port apps to Windows. I'm not talking about stopping people from porting or shutting out platforms. Is it worth the effort? That's the question.

And market share is important to open source. It's only by increasing market share that drivers and other important software can be pressured to open up to Linux. If Linux had a larger market share, people wouldn't need Cedega to run games, Adobe and Macromedia might actually make products for Linux, and hardware manufacturers might actually have to make drivers for Linux.

[mark]

"Open Source" should run in any environment. Isn't that what open source is all about?

[Knome_fan]

"Open Source" should run in any environment. Isn't that what open source is all about?
Nope, it isn't.

[az]

In my opinion, open source apps should be on Windows for familiarity's sake, but their Linux counterparts should function better.

...

Ultimately, it's up to developers, but if I had my say, I'd say put most of your efforts into open source apps for Linux. Windows ports could happen or not happen.

There are two kids of users of open source software. There are the ones who do not care that it is open source and there are the ones who do.

Every now and then, then ones that do not care about software freedom think "okay! We have enough stuff now, let's ditch this stupid open freedom crap and move along with our shiny new operating system! We have enough bling to really compete with the other players now! Yay!"

FLOSS is not about how many people use it. It is not about the software at all. It is about the fact that software is not property.

You cannot expect everybody to beleive this. But, to impose additional restrictions on the use of the software based on their beleifs or choices goes against the principles of GNU, the GPL and Free Libre Open Source software.

To compile and run the applications on win32 does not, in any way, make them proprietary.

The attention should not be on the applications that you can and cannot compile in win32. The focus should be on the rights that you lose by accepting the EULA from Microsoft. The fact that most of what your computer does while it is running proprietary software is none of your business is the problem that should be discussed here.

[az]

Nope, it isn't.


!?

[TravisNewman]

again, azz, you say exactly what I wanted to say, but more eloquently than I ever could.

And knome fan, I'm interested in hearing your explanation of "no it isn't" as well

[az]

tell that to the bastards trying to wipe opensource, ubuntu and this forum off the face of this planet.
1. Watch your language.
2. No one is trying to run this forum off the face of this planet.
3. The competition that exists between Microsoft and Linux is not repreesentative of open source software. It is representative of the companies that use it. You can make a lot of money using open source software (Mark Shuttleworth made millions *using* open source software)

The idea behind FLOSS is that it is open to anyone to obtain, use, improve and pass on. You can compare the ideals behind proprietary and free software, but you cannot say that open source is up against Microsoft.

You can say that Novell is competing with Microsoft. That is completely different. In that light, the question should be:
"Should Novell refuse to make a windows version of Beagle, if asked?" Now, *that* is a kind of question that can be discussed.

[az]

when Windows is taking up 95% of the market of course there's no competition, although in theory mac os should easily rival it while linux can probably rival windows 95

Most linux distributions easily rival Windows Xp, 2000, 98, Millenium, 95, 3.1 etc... I do not know where you are coming from.

[madjo]

On the question in the topic starter: Should FOSS run on WIndows?
Yes absolutely. Why hold the people who do not like LInux or don't know there is a choice on OS, why hold them back to something that might help them understand?

Open source is just that.. open source, why incorporate some structure to cripple the openess of open source?

When I am working in Windows, I prefer to use the Open source programs (such as Filezilla for my ftp needs, and Open Office for my office suite software, Audicity for my audio editing, CDex for cd-ripping, etc)... there is a large list of Open Source software available already for Windows, why suddenly decide that those don't have a reason for existing?

my 2 cents.

[Knome_fan]

!?

Open source is about many different things to many different people, so I fail to see your point. For some people open source, or rather free software is certainly about a lot more than simply about choice, so I don't think you have much of a point here.


FLOSS is not about how many people use it. It is not about the software at all. It is about the fact that software is not property.
Nope, free software, not FLOSS, is about freedom. However, if you use Windows, you don't have freedom in the free as in freedom sense, do you?


You cannot expect everybody to beleive this. But, to impose additional restrictions on the use of the software based on their beleifs or choices goes against the principles of GNU, the GPL and Free Libre Open Source software.
I'm really trying to stay calm here, but did you even read what other people wrote? As writing it alread 600 times doesn't seem to help, maybe this does:
Nobody wants to impose additional restrictions on free software!!!111!!!oneoneone


To compile and run the applications on win32 does not, in any way, make them proprietary.

And nobody said it does, so what's your point?


The fact that most of what your computer does while it is running proprietary software is none of your business is the problem that should be discussed here.
That's exactly what people like Aaron Seigo discus, when they talk about making the free desktop a success and ask the question if porting apps to windows does help this goal or doesn't, but somehow you seem to totally have missed this.

[az]

I'm really trying to stay calm here, but did you even read what other people wrote? As writing it alread 600 times doesn't seem to help, maybe this does:
Nobody wants to impose additional restrictions on free software!!!111!!!oneoneone




How about:
"In my opinion, open source apps should be on Windows for familiarity's sake, but their Linux counterparts should function better. It's a real shame that Mozilla's products are half-ass on Linux but fully functional in Windows--even simple things like having control-# select the # tab doesn't happen in Linux's Firefox; we have to use alt-# to do that but control-something to do everything else.

Ultimately, it's up to developers, but if I had my say, I'd say put most of your efforts into open source apps for Linux. Windows ports could happen or not happen."



Nope, free software, not FLOSS, is about freedom.


What?

[TravisNewman]

please try not to be so abrasive. This conversation is a good one, lets keep it that way.

Now, I have read this whole thread and I still think that what you're talking about is restricting software on Windows, some even mentioned a new license to restrict it. SO yes, someone IS talking about imposing restrictions on free software.

The question of whether porting apps to windows and whether it helps the goal of a free desktop IS a question of at least influencing people to not develop open source software for windows, which WOULD restrict open source, and WOULD be a bit of a lock in for the free desktop.

The issues are at least very very similar.

Now, when you say " Nope, free software, not FLOSS, is about freedom."
What is your definition of free software vs FLOSS? Free, Libre, Open source software, IS Free software, is it not? And if you mean free as in beer, then no it's not about freedom at all.

[Knome_fan]

Now, I have read this whole thread and I still think that what you're talking about is restricting software on Windows, some even mentioned a new license to restrict it. SO yes, someone IS talking about imposing restrictions on free software.

First off, I didn't even say what I think about the issue, so I have a hard time to understand how I'm supposed to be talking about restricting software on windows.
Second, if someone suggests a new license to restrict software, I must have overlooked it, but people like aaseigo and aysiu sure aren't talking about it.



The question of whether porting apps to windows and whether it helps the goal of a free desktop IS a question of at least influencing people to not develop open source software for windows, which WOULD restrict open source, and WOULD be a bit of a lock in for the free desktop.

The issues are at least very very similar.

No, they aren't similar at all. On the one hand you would have a legal restriction for using software, on the other hand you have a discussion about what to do to make the free desktop a success. I really fail to see how you can find these two things even remotely similar.



Now, when you say " Nope, free software, not FLOSS, is about freedom."
What is your definition of free software vs FLOSS? Free, Libre, Open source software, IS Free software, is it not? And if you mean free as in beer, then no it's not about freedom at all.
No, open source software isn't the same a free software. Take a look here for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_vs._free_software

And no, I'm not talking about free as in beer.

[TravisNewman]

open source isn't the same as free software, but FREE open source software IS. FLOSS is different from OSS. FLOSS includes the free. Free software and FLOSS are different ways of saying the same thing. So what you meant was that open source isn't about freedom but free software (or FLOSS) IS about freedom, right? A wikipedia link from the link you posted even says that FLOSS is another word for free software.

Now as far as when I said:
"The question of whether porting apps to windows and whether it helps the goal of a free desktop IS a question of at least influencing people to not develop open source software for windows, which WOULD restrict open source, and WOULD be a bit of a lock in for the free desktop.

The issues are at least very very similar."

I meant that this issue and the one of restricting free software are similar.
EDIT: restricting it by influence, not legality

[Knome_fan]

open source isn't the same as free software, but FREE open source software IS. FLOSS is different from OSS. FLOSS includes the free. Free software and FLOSS are different ways of saying the same thing. So what you meant was that open source isn't about freedom but free software (or FLOSS) IS about freedom, right? A wikipedia link from the link you posted even says that FLOSS is another word for free software.

Well, I always understood FLOSS to include free and open source software and wikipedia seems to agree with me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free/Libre_Open_Source_Software
Anyway, that's a really unimportant point, don't you think?

Btw., here's Stallman's take on the term:

There are many people, who, for instance, want to study our
community, or write about our community, and want to avoid
taking sides between the Free Software movement and the Open
Source movement. Often they have heard primarily of the Open
Source movement, and they think that we all support it. So, I
point out to them that, in fact, our community was created by
the Free Software movement. but then they often say that they
are not addressing that particular disagreement, and that they
would like to mention both movements without taking a side. So I
recommend the term Free/Libre Open Source Software as a way they
can mention both movements and give equal weight to both. And
they abbreviate FLOSS once they have said what it stands for. So
I think that's a ... If you don't want to take a side between
the two movements, then yes, by all means, use that term. Cause
what I hope you will do is take the side of the free software
movement. But not everybody has to.The term is legitimate.




Now as far as when I said:
"The question of whether porting apps to windows and whether it helps the goal of a free desktop IS a question of at least influencing people to not develop open source software for windows, which WOULD restrict open source, and WOULD be a bit of a lock in for the free desktop.

The issues are at least very very similar."

I meant that this issue and the one of restricting free software are similar.
Sorry, now you lost me. What issue exactly did you men?

Edit: Ok, now you are clear, however I still fail to see how you can find discussing if it helps the free desktop or not if software is ported to windows and legally restricting the use of software to be even remotely similar.

[Knome_fan]

How about:
"In my opinion, open source apps should be on Windows for familiarity's sake, but their Linux counterparts should function better. It's a real shame that Mozilla's products are half-ass on Linux but fully functional in Windows--even simple things like having control-# select the # tab doesn't happen in Linux's Firefox; we have to use alt-# to do that but control-something to do everything else.

Ultimately, it's up to developers, but if I had my say, I'd say put most of your efforts into open source apps for Linux. Windows ports could happen or not happen."


Well, I agree with the author that I would like if the devs put their efforts primarily on Linux, simply because I use Linux. ;-)
But this is still a far cry from
impose[ing] additional restrictions on the use of the software isn't it?

[TravisNewman]

ok for the terms of our discussion lets use Free Software and Open Source, all spelled out :)

I meant that, when you said "Nobody wants to impose additional restrictions on free software!!!111!!!oneoneone"
I think that the two issues, the one of the license, and the one of the developers simply choosing not to develop for Windows in order to promote the Free desktop, are at least very similar to imposing additional restrictions on Free Software. One would use legal restrictions, one would use influence, but they'd both restrict it for the users of Windows. I have to use Windows at work, and while I hate it, I couldn't get as much done as easily without Free Software. The software that we use (I can't really get into any specifics) doesn't have a linux/unix equivalent, so we have to use Windows, and if, for whatever reason people stopped developing Free Software for Windows, it would cost the company quite a bit of money to find proprietary versions of the Free Software we use. Argue the pros and cons all you want, but it's a lock in strategy for the Free desktop, lock-ins are one thing I've always hated about the big software giants.

[Knome_fan]

ok for the terms of our discussion lets use Free Software and Open Source, all spelled out :)

I meant that, when you said "Nobody wants to impose additional restrictions on free software!!!111!!!oneoneone"
I think that the two issues, the one of the license, and the one of the developers simply choosing not to develop for Windows in order to promote the Free desktop, are at least very similar to imposing additional restrictions on Free Software. One would use legal restrictions, one would use influence, but they'd both restrict it for the users of Windows. I have to use Windows at work, and while I hate it, I couldn't get as much done as easily without Free Software. The software that we use (I can't really get into any specifics) doesn't have a linux/unix equivalent, so we have to use Windows, and if, for whatever reason people stopped developing Free Software for Windows, it would cost the company quite a bit of money to find proprietary versions of the Free Software we use. Argue the pros and cons all you want, but it's a lock in strategy for the Free desktop, lock-ins are one thing I've always hated about the big software giants.
Again, I can only repeat myself here.
On the one hand you have a legally binding restriction, on the other hand you have a discussion that might lead to someone developing open source software on Linux to think about if porting his app to Windows would help achieve his goal, if his goal is to advance the free desktop. How you can think of these things as similar is still beyond me.

Now you are right that in both cases you might end up with some open source software not running on windows, but to call the decision of a developer not to port his application to windows imposing restrictions on free software is a daring proposition, to put it mildly. After all, it's his application and it's his time and he is under no obligation whatsoever to provide a windows port of his software, or is he?

[poofyhairguy]

thats exactly why i am so against moving OSS to windows. it will hurt linuxin the end.

I know you are wrong. Why? Because I came to Linux because I first liked Firefox on Windows.

You must prove the power of free software before people will beleive. And personally I'd rather see Openoffice and Firefox do well than Linux do well on the desktop. It does more to help the cause I say.

[poofyhairguy]

This is really hard to swallow, because it doesn't make sense. If you want Gnome, KDE whater to become a valid desktop platform for "normal users" you automatically enter into a competition with Windows.


But honestly, KDE and Gnome more compete with each other than compete with Windows or Macs. There is some competition, but..........

[Knome_fan]

But honestly, KDE and Gnome more compete with each other than compete with Windows or Macs. There is some competition, but..........
If you say so...



I know you are wrong. Why? Because I came to Linux because I first liked Firefox on Windows.
What you are forgetting that while it might make sense (sense in the scope of this discussion) for some open source software to run on windows, it might not make sense for other software.


It does more to help the cause I say.
And what cause would that be?

[poofyhairguy]

If you say so...

Actually no. What I say doesn't go. Its one of the better things about life.



What you are forgetting that while it might make sense (sense in the scope of this discussion) for some open source software to run on windows, it might not make sense for other software.

Sure. for some it does, others it doesn't.



And what cause would that be?

My personal cause for not having to deal with web pages that won't open without IE and documents that won't open without office.

[professor_chaos]

I guess my opinion is that yes, oss should be available (if someone want to port it)cross platform and even to propriatary platforms. But it seems to me that an open source app that runs on a closed source platform is just weird. Maybe in some way not really completely open anymore. Kinda like all those "free" statements you hear all the time, like buy one get one free. I'TS NOT FREE IF I HAVE TO BUY ONE! It's just half price from normal.

So while I don't really have any strong convictions about any particular platform and whether OSS or FOSS or FLOSS should run there, I feel alittle uneasy about open source running on closed source. More of a philosophical standpoint I guess, not necessarily practical.

[drizek]

ok, i want to clear something up. i never said that all all OSS should be limited to being compiled and run on linux, i just said that the developers should have the option to make it run only on open platforms if they want to. i am not saying that the GPL should be removed completly.

currently, i can port any opensource app to any platform, whether the dev approves or not, and i dont think that is a good thing.

think of OSS as scientific theories. they are free to be used and modified by anyone, and the original author encourages this because it will improve the theory. but then there are some negative consequences of this. if it was possible to "license" certain sientific discoveries under a license which would make it illegal to apply the discovery to be used in making weapons or other harmfull things, i would think it would be used by many scientists, and the world would be a better place because of it.

as for the comment about OSS being something that is not owned by anyone, i think that is incorrect as well. back to science, its still Einsteins Theory of Relativity. OSS is just the idea that if you share information with others, you can all benefit from it. But even then, it is still their right to do so because it is their intellectual property.

I am personally not against porting software to windows, as long as it does not harm a fully open source platform such as ubuntu.

There are two ways which porting software to windows can harm linux

First, it could make linux users switch to windows, and linux will be less supported by hardware/software developers.

If linux dies, opensource dies. the developers of OOo have no control whatsoever over what MS does to windows. There is no such thing as a fork of windows. what if MS decides to kill the GTK toolkit under windows? no more gimp, no more gaim, no more inkscape. The same goes for every other OSS app out there. and i know that this is an extreme case scenario, but it still needs to be considered.

Second: It could lead to the author neglecting the linux version. firefox is a great example of this. I am using konqueror right now because firefox just sucks under kde. thankfully however, OOo has not suffered from this and it works wonderfully under linux. it integrates great with both KDE and gnome and it is helping OSS by spreading open document standards to non-free platforms.

And back to firefox, in the longterm, this is not going to matter. it is important that firefox is forcing more web developers to be more standards compliant and thus making KHTML more popular, popular enough for apple to drop IE from OSX. eventually, firefox will die in linux and it will be replaced by a superior app. but in the short term(at least until KDE 3.5 comes out)linux is suffering from the lack of a good browser.

[drizek]

nm, dp

[az]

There are two ways which porting software to windows can harm linux

First, it could make linux users switch to windows, and linux will be less supported by hardware/software developers.

If linux dies, opensource dies. the developers of OOo have no control whatsoever over what MS does to windows. There is no such thing as a fork of windows. what if MS decides to kill the GTK toolkit under windows? no more gimp, no more gaim, no more inkscape. The same goes for every other OSS app out there. and i know that this is an extreme case scenario, but it still needs to be considered.

Second: It could lead to the author neglecting the linux version. firefox is a great example of this. I am using konqueror right now because firefox just sucks under kde. thankfully however, OOo has not suffered from this and it works wonderfully under linux. it integrates great with both KDE and gnome and it is helping OSS by spreading open document standards to non-free platforms.


1. If linux dies, it is because BSD, Hurd or another FLOSS OS kernel replaces it. I think I understand your point. However, I do not think that FLOSS will go away simply because you can run some apps in windows. There will always be the need to avoid proprietary software. Hopefully, this need will continue to grow.

2. You forget that there are more authors in the picture. You can write an app which will compile on any unix platform. Many people have made cygwin a unix wrapper for windows. Most of the software that you can compile on cygwin does so without any effort (or knowledge) on the part of the person who whote the original application.
The original developer wrote the program to scratch her own itch. To solve a problem or answer a need that she felt. I seriously doubt that there will be any trend to massively port linux-native applications (at the expense of upstream development) to windows because windows starts to be capable of running them.

[drizek]

1. just because there will always be a need for it doesnt mean there will always be enough manpower behind it. My point is that this need could become smaller if OSS is ported to windows. We cannot be at the mercy of MS. Right now, linux is at the mercy of hardware developers, and look at what a mess that is. the only real way to change this is if more people start using linux, and the tables get turned.

2. I did not forget about the other authors. i put it in bold for a reason. If there is an author that would be willing to port an app to windows that would not otherwise be doing anything constructive, then there really is no reason to stop them.

[TravisNewman]

sorry, I was unclear yet again, when I said that developers would write code for linux and not windows, I meant what drizek said about developers being able to say "I didn't write this for windows, don't compile it for windows"

But then that would be a different license. So I guess it all boils down to one point. The influence I mentioned was before it clicked in my slow-moving mind (haven't slept nearly any the past few nights) that a different license was needed either way.

What I meant by the situations being similar is that they would impose restrictions on the software possibilities for Windows.

[TravisNewman]

1. just because there will always be a need for it doesnt mean there will always be enough manpower behind it.

To write for Windows, you have to be running Windows. If for example OpenOffice switched totally to linux, then Windows developers would just take the code and compile it for Windows. No manpower would be lost.

[az]

1. just because there will always be a need for it doesnt mean there will always be enough manpower behind it. My point is that this need could become smaller if OSS is ported to windows. We cannot be at the mercy of MS. Right now, linux is at the mercy of hardware developers, and look at what a mess that is. the only real way to change this is if more people start using linux, and the tables get turned.

2. I did not forget about the other authors. i put it in bold for a reason. If there is an author that would be willing to port an app to windows that would not otherwise be doing anything constructive, then there really is no reason to stop them.


1. You cannot treat FLOSS like a proprietary product. You cannot say we should do this and not do that. The "scratch my own itch" aspect of the development model is exactly what makes it better.
Hardware a mess? How long have you been using linux? More and more vendors a jumping in. More and more hardware works with FLOSS drivers. You should have seen things two three or five years ago!
I read one editorial once which said that when linux will reach the ten percent mark on desktop usage, vendors will pretty much *all* treat linux as a mainstream OS and not a fringe phenomenon. We are snowballing towards that relatively fast.

2. This is common. Why make Mono and not make Python better? Why Udev and not devfs? Why cairo and not make gdk better? it is because there is not one big concerted, organised effort, that's why.

[drizek]

1. im certainly not saying that hardware support in linux is bad. its way better than windows. but it isnt perfect. Things dont just snowball on their own. whoever said there was no "competition" is wrong. there is a competition, there is a goal, and it is to reach that 10% mark. im under the impression that this whole debate were having is about what would be the best way to reach the point where linux is a mainstream OS, because its pretty much a given that well all be better off when it is.

2. sorry, i dont get it :) what are you trying to get at?

@panickedthumb, i meant manpower in terms of developing linux itself, not apps for it. basically my point is taht if a lot of people switch to windows as a result of all the good apps being ported over, then there wont be enough manpower behind linux and it would be unable to keep up with windows. and then the resulting "death" of linux would be harmfull to OSS on any platform because application developers would no longer have control over the base OS.

[agger]

And back to firefox, in the longterm, this is not going to matter. it is important that firefox is forcing more web developers to be more standards compliant and thus making KHTML more popular, popular enough for apple to drop IE from OSX. eventually, firefox will die in linux and it will be replaced by a superior app. but in the short term(at least until KDE 3.5 comes out)linux is suffering from the lack of a good browser.

Everybody keeps complaining over Firefox in Linux.

Just for the record: I'm using Firefox in Hoary (on a GNOME desktop), and I think
it works just fine! I've no real complaints to be lodged. It outdoes IE in
every respect, and its rendering seems to be fine.

[poofyhairguy]

Everybody keeps complaining over Firefox in Linux.

Just for the record: I'm using Firefox in Hoary (on a GNOME desktop), and I think
it works just fine! I've no real complaints to be lodged. It outdoes IE in
every respect, and its rendering seems to be fine.

I use it too much. It slow on scrolls, lines break more, it eats a lot of CPU to render pages, and it uses more memory than Epiphany.

[bored2k]

I have been Firefox free for about a week or more now (just after I switched to Breezy). It's lighter, renders faster, looks a whole lot more native and just feels right. Some will whine because of adblock (wich Konqueror integrated -- kudos), but the FF extension slowes down FF quite a bit so I stopped using it. I only miss the right click - block images from server button, but that is it. I love Epiphany with its extensions now.

[az]

1. im certainly not saying that hardware support in linux is bad. its way better than windows. but it isnt perfect. Things dont just snowball on their own. whoever said there was no "competition" is wrong. there is a competition, there is a goal, and it is to reach that 10% mark. im under the impression that this whole debate were having is about what would be the best way to reach the point where linux is a mainstream OS, because its pretty much a given that well all be better off when it is.

2. sorry, i dont get it :) what are you trying to get at?

@panickedthumb, i meant manpower in terms of developing linux itself, not apps for it. basically my point is taht if a lot of people switch to windows as a result of all the good apps being ported over, then there wont be enough manpower behind linux and it would be unable to keep up with windows. and then the resulting "death" of linux would be harmfull to OSS on any platform because application developers would no longer have control over the base OS.


Actually, things *do* snowball on their own. Like two teenagers having sex - you cannot avoid it. With FLOSS, the tools and docs are there. As soon as there is a need, someone can go and fill it. You just cannot say when and exactly how it is going to happen. But is does happen.
Unlike a proprietary design model (nine-to-five, ho hum) it is the need that "sucks people in"
I doubt that because more peole use some applications that windows will take anything away. In fact, the more people who use an app, the better it gets.

Which brings me to the second point. Manpower. You are concerned that there is a waste of manpower by porting apps to windows. Reinventing the wheel, or working on something less important is a common critticism of FLOSS, but is mostly untrue.
There is not a finite (for lack of a better word) number of developers, as in proprietary software. There is not a waste of manpower as you suggest. If that were true, we would only have one desktop environment, one web browser, one programming language, etc...

[drizek]

Everybody keeps complaining over Firefox in Linux.

Just for the record: I'm using Firefox in Hoary (on a GNOME desktop), and I think
it works just fine! I've no real complaints to be lodged. It outdoes IE in
every respect, and its rendering seems to be fine.

it takes like 7 seconds to load, and it looks really ugly in kde. its a little better in suse cause they have a plastik/crystal theme for it, but things like drag n drop and the download manager dont work correctly. but when i change my icon theme or style in kde, i have to download/make a new theme for firefox. with konqueror, all the icons and styles change on their own. seeing as how i dont like plastik/crystal, firefox ends up looking very out of place on my desktop.

"In fact, the more people who use an app, the better it gets."

but for who? it could get better for windows and not get better for linux. there is a limited market share in linux and if an opensource app can make a sizable dent in the windows world, then the focus of development will go to windows and away from linux. that is what i am afraid of. im not saying it will happen in every case though.

[Lord Illidan]

I am in favour of Open Source apps running on Windows..

Number 1.
If they are truly open source, then there should be nothing to prevent a guy taking the source code and modifying it to work on Windows, Linux, or the Mac.

Number 2.
Any suggestions given by the wider selection of people who are running the software only because it is available for Windows can be ported over to the Linux port.

Number 3.
It can work for the benefit of Linux. "Open Source is good, you've seen it for yourself. How about seeing an open-source OS now?"

Number 4.
Some people have been on Windows all their life and will never change. It is evil, a microsoft act even, to refuse to give them open source software and force them to spend money on commercial software just because they use Windows instead of Linux.

[lao_V]

Probably been said many times already here but anything that supports the open-source movement is good.

[Teroedni]

I think it is Good
The best with open-source on Windows is that Microsoft loses money on the competition(Open Office)

[Knome_fan]

it takes like 7 seconds to load, and it looks really ugly in kde. its a little better in suse cause they have a plastik/crystal theme for it, but things like drag n drop and the download manager dont work correctly. but when i change my icon theme or style in kde, i have to download/make a new theme for firefox. with konqueror, all the icons and styles change on their own. seeing as how i dont like plastik/crystal, firefox ends up looking very out of place on my desktop.

Off-topic, but did you give the gtk-qt-theme a try (apt-get install gtk2-engines-gtk-qt)?
It's not perfect and if I remember correctly there are some glitches with firefox, but all in all it works quite well.

[GeneralZod]

Firefox + KDE

If this (http://wiki.kdenews.org/tiki-index.php?page=Firefox+KDE+Integration) talk summary is any indication, we can hopefully look forward to a more KDE-fied Firefox in the future.

[drizek]

Off-topic, but did you give the gtk-qt-theme a try (apt-get install gtk2-engines-gtk-qt)?
It's not perfect and if I remember correctly there are some glitches with firefox, but all in all it works quite well.

ya, i use that but it still doesnt change icons. i cant find a compelling reason to use firefox over konqueror, and im not going to bother with it.

[darkmatter]

If this (http://wiki.kdenews.org/tiki-index.php?page=Firefox+KDE+Integration) talk summary is any indication, we can hopefully look forward to a more KDE-fied Firefox in the future.

They've been working on that for some time now. The last time I gave it a try it wasn't very stable though.