The paradox of FOSS projects supporting Windows

[madjr]

As we near in on the Inkscape 0.46 release, I've been increasingly focusing on the few remaining "critical" bugs. A lot of these are specific to the Windows port, which is a bit frustrating for those of us whose big hope in life is to *replace* Windows, not to support it.

For Inkscape, popularity on Windows was sort of a side-effect not an objective. The entire raison d'etre of Inkscape (going back to the Sodipodi and Gill origins) was because of the lack of drawing tools on Linux. The proprietary Windows drawing app vendors refused to support Linux, so we all set off to fix that issue ourselves, and in so doing help make Linux a more viable alternative to Windows. For me personally, solving bug 1 is a big motivation to working on Inkscape.

In fact, while there had been some work on Sodipodi to do a Windows port, when we started Inkscape we dropped that, so we could focus on the Linux core. But it was not long before people who loved Inkscape and wanted it to work on Windows volunteered to undertake the porting work. We figured, hey, if it didn't impact the Inkscape core, and if these Windows contributors took care of all the porting work, what could it hurt to have more platform independence? These porters deserve a lot of credit - not only did they pull off a decent port, but the Windows version of Inkscape has proven to be extremely popular, and today our estimates are that we have vastly more Windows-based users than any other platform.

One could also argue that a Windows port could help provide a "stepping stone" for people to ease their migration from Windows to Linux. I have no clue whether this has come to be, nor know of any way to measure the significance of it if it has...

continuation (let the author know what you think):
http://bryceharrington.org/drupal/foss-win-paradox

[JacobRogers]

I've been looking into drawing tools on linux I might give this one a try. I tried to design a t-shirt in gimp and I got frustrated.

[Chame_Wizard]

There shouldn't be ports of Linux Software .



Happy Easter :lolflag:

[smartboyathome]

I do like apps that I use on Linux, and when I am forced to use Windows it is nice to have them on it, but I do think more attention should be payed on the Linux port than the Windows one.

[Andrewie]

There should be better development tools, platform specific bugs should not exist. I hope to see more tools like kdevelop/QT where it's as simple as "compile for windows".

[banjobacon]

The text of the first post really belongs in a pair of quote tags.

[DeadSuperHero]

I happen to think the opposite of most of the people in this thread, and here's my logic:

- First and foremost, it's Free Software. But, let's say the end-user just wants to paint a nice picture, for free, and not have to go through installing Linux (let's say this person is a DX10 Gamer or something)

- So they might not switch to Linux right off the bat. Maybe they never will. But, with more ports to Windows, they can at least enjoy the great stuff (Firefox, GIMP, Pidgin, VLC, Inkscape, OpenOffice.org, Brasero, soon-to-be Amarok 2, etc.)

- That said person may never be comfortable with Linux. But hey, as long as they support FOSS apps, you know that takes a big chunk out of MS's marketshare, provided you can switch enough people to those apps.

- On the other hand, if they do want to try Linux, at least they'll have all the familiar apps they loved in Windows. Ever try learning a ported app on Linux first, after you've switched? For me, it was actually harder when it came to GIMP, Inkscape, and OpenOffice.org Draw. So, transitioning could be easier this way.

- Microsoft recently unveiled some plan to use FOSS as the underpinnings of their proprietary packages, I recall. So, if they build off excellently ported technology, they have to port back any code changes they make, which can ultimately benefit to other projects. Maybe even WINE, if you look at the coded system calls. Just a thought.

-Finally, have you seen the proprietary crap on Windows? IE, AIM, Microsoft Office, MSN IM, WMP, etc? We're doing these poor Windows users a favor by offering them something better. It makes every Windows user's life a bit better, and as I stated earlier, it can make switching to Linux easier. Just give it time.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone, I'm just calling it as I see it.

[madjr]

The text of the first post really belongs in a pair of quote tags.

yea you are right.

done :)

[madjr]

I happen to think the opposite of most of the people in this thread, and here's my logic:

- First and foremost, it's Free Software. But, let's say the end-user just wants to paint a nice picture, for free, and not have to go through installing Linux (let's say this person is a DX10 Gamer or something)

- So they might not switch to Linux right off the bat. Maybe they never will. But, with more ports to Windows, they can at least enjoy the great stuff (Firefox, GIMP, Pidgin, VLC, Inkscape, OpenOffice.org, Brasero, soon-to-be Amarok 2, etc.)

- That said person may never be comfortable with Linux. But hey, as long as they support FOSS apps, you know that takes a big chunk out of MS's marketshare, provided you can switch enough people to those apps.

- On the other hand, if they do want to try Linux, at least they'll have all the familiar apps they loved in Windows. Ever try learning a ported app on Linux first, after you've switched? For me, it was actually harder when it came to GIMP, Inkscape, and OpenOffice.org Draw. So, transitioning could be easier this way.

- Microsoft recently unveiled some plan to use FOSS as the underpinnings of their proprietary packages, I recall. So, if they build off excellently ported technology, they have to port back any code changes they make, which can ultimately benefit to other projects. Maybe even WINE, if you look at the coded system calls. Just a thought.

-Finally, have you seen the proprietary crap on Windows? IE, AIM, Microsoft Office, MSN IM, WMP, etc? We're doing these poor Windows users a favor by offering them something better. It makes every Windows user's life a bit better, and as I stated earlier, it can make switching to Linux easier. Just give it time.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone, I'm just calling it as I see it.

i think the same.

It helped me :)

am free of windows now and i know many will too.

i also contribute as much as i can in linux, it's a great hobby i don't plan to give up (ever! :))

installing ubuntu to my friends is super easy as they know most of the apps already.

At first they just found openoffice a bit akward because they never used it, on the other hand they were extremelly glad it came with their favorite browser firefox.

If openoffice and other foss apps get more popular, so will linux :)

anyway, this article is about the author, he says that the windows users barely contribute and the few windows porters are a bit overwhelmed..

he also wants people to switch to ubuntu.... is it working? probably :)


i would say that interest on an Open source app (aka "user base") is what will keep it alive

[Iandefor]

How is it paradoxical? Why should a Windows user not enjoy the use of FOSS even if they stick to Windows for whatever reason?

[klange]

I have nothing against Inkscape, Pidgin, GIMP, Amarok... hell, I have no problems with anyone porting things to Windows. It's a great way to get people into open source software.

[dizee]

While I understand your point, the fact is if it wasn't for open-source software being ported to Windows I would not be a Ubuntu user today. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. I first discovered Firefox on Windows, and learned the philosophy behind it, then after I tried out a few more programs I was convinced of the power of open source and its quality.

So it's not neccesarily a bad thing, as a "gateway drug" so to speak. I do think that linux problems should be prioritised but Windows ports are extremely beneficial. Besides, isn't choice the spirit of open source? And some open source is better than none if they do run it there.

[frup]

I see no reason for any Linux using programmer to feel the need to port something to windows. If windows users want to use FOSS, they can do the porting themselves, that brings more programmers in to FOSS, they might even switch later.

Having FOSS programs gain market share amongst Mac and Windows users is good though, for example if GIMP held 20% market share against photoshop (I know that's kidding) that would be 20% less people who complain about not having photoshop when they try Linux.

Theoretically the market share FOSS gains would also weaken it's proprietary competition as they rely on income from sales which would drop to FOSS, FOSS relies on users who participate and so FOSS might even get stronger. A company loosing a battle to FOSS might recognize the FOSS way as superior and switch too.

[mostwanted]

I actually started using Inkscape on Windows instead of a cracked Macromedia Fireworks with the intent of easing my switch to Linux later on (and I obviously did switch). Inkscape really is awesome software.

[ubuntu-freak]

I'm surprised at the poll results. If an application is ported to Windows, then it should it done properly and treated equally (as OpenOffice.org is) or not ported at all.

Nathan

Edit: Maybe I should answer your question:-).

Yes, I think it benifits GNU/Linux and open source. Just look at the effect OpenOffice.org is having, the biggest non-OS open source project.

[aysiu]

I think it's a shame the Windows version of Firefox is better than the Linux version (in terms of stability and sensible defaults).

[zmjjmz]

But now with andLinux, is this porting even necessary?

[popch]

@Mr. Psychopath (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=209313)

All of your points, plus:

There's a good chance that a piece of software will be more robust if it is being developed with the prospect of being used in or ported to another environment.

It is an old doctrine of mine that in every development project, the greatest risk lies in the singular case, in this case the singular target environment.

[NeoChaosX]

Going to agree with what everyone said here. And I find it funny that some people advocate for Free and open source software because it encourages software that can be built on any platform and architecture, yet want to limit development of such software to a single platform for ideological reasons.

[aysiu]

It's not about limiting to be mean. It's about prioritizing. The priority should be the port to an open platform.

[guitarMan666]

I don't think that there is a paradox. There should actually be more free open source programs available for Windows simply because more people use it. That creates more exposure all around both to Open Source Software and to Linux.

In fact, if it wasn't for free open source software almost always having Linux ports (the exception seeming to be MediaCoder) I wouldn't even have bothered w/ Ubuntu.

Generating interest among Windows users for free (both as in freedom and as in beer), well-supported, programs that work as well or better than expensive proprietary ones (GIMP, Scribus and OpenOffice.org versus their equivalents come to mind) would in turn generate interest in open source operating systems like Linux and ReactOS.

*looks down* oops seems like i got on a soap box! *steps down quietly* carry on :)

[patrickaupperle]

My opinion is not one of the choices, but I picked the first one.
I don't think it really helps Linux too much, but I really think we should continue porting to windows. We sit here and complain about the proprietary vendors not porting to Linux, so I think we should really set a good example. Maybe these large corporations will start using parts of out open source programs. Then they might port to linux. As I said earlier, though, this is not the only goal. We really should not gripe about there behavior, then partake in it.

[Lostincyberspace]

I don't think that there is a paradox. There should actually be more free open source programs available for Windows simply because more people use it. That creates more exposure all around both to Open Source Software and to Linux.

In fact, if it wasn't for free open source software almost always having Linux ports (the exception seeming to be MediaCoder) I wouldn't even have bothered w/ Ubuntu.

Generating interest among Windows users for free (both as in freedom and as in beer), well-supported, programs that work as well or better than expensive proprietary ones (GIMP, Scribus and OpenOffice.org versus their equivalents come to mind) would in turn generate interest in open source operating systems like Linux and ReactOS.

*looks down* oops seems like i got on a soap box! *steps down quietly* carry on :)
Just one thing MediaCoder Uses MPlayer. I know I found that out after a while.

[igknighted]

Didn't vote, no rational choices.

FOSS exists to make great software available to users and developers. It doesn't exist to promote linux. Linux is just a FOSS project that takes advantage of other FOSS projects. It's great when they help each other, but if OO.o and KDE and others run just as well on windows and people use them, then it's great that people are using FOSS apps at all.

[InfinityCircuit]

The robust nature of Openoffice on my Windows XP machine was what encouraged me to try Ubuntu. There--ports really can cause you to trust in Linux :)

[madjr]

Didn't vote, no rational choices.

FOSS exists to make great software available to users and developers. It doesn't exist to promote linux. Linux is just a FOSS project that takes advantage of other FOSS projects. It's great when they help each other, but if OO.o and KDE and others run just as well on windows and people use them, then it's great that people are using FOSS apps at all.

"then it's great that people are using FOSS apps at all."

You seem to think a bit low about FOSS proyects vs proprietary.

Code is code, proprietary is NOT better. They only have more money available for marketing..