Keep all open sorce programs to linux

[Periswell]

i was just thinking. with liux everything is free (apart from if you buy some commercial software such as crossover linux) but with windows, now if you get your hands on a disk you could also have all open source programs on it. for example, microsoft word could easily be replaced by any free mockoff. so i was just wondering. do you think that all windows users should pay for their software and all linux users get free carbon copies of them?

[kevin11951]

if we want market share, we are going to have to allow other OS's to sample our product. :)

[Saya]

I don't understand what you're asking. Whether it shouldn't be allowed to release free programs for Windows and commercial programs for Linux?

[kevin11951]

I don't understand what you're asking. Whether it shouldn't be allowed to release free programs for Windows and commercial programs for Linux?

i think he is trying to say, that we should try to keep FOSS strictly to linux. which i am against! read my above post.

[Periswell]

for linux to have open sorce software and for microsoft to have to pay for their programs

[vishzilla]

it can't happen. some of the public licenses can't prevent you to keep programs for linux only

[kevin11951]

for linux to have open sorce software and for microsoft to have to pay for their programs

like i said that wont work, because if we do that, than linux and FOSS will never be used. People want to test out software for themselves w/o any strings attached, and needing to install a whole new OS is definitely one hell(pardon my french) of a string!

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well the thing is that something along those lines goes against the basic ideals of the GPL and open source in general.
The key goal of open source software is to allow ANYONE to use it, windows users, mac users, linux users, bsd users and everything in between.
The goal of OSS is not to be restrictive in allowing people to modify it, if it did as you asked then OSS would be no better then Microsoft.

[MONODA]

that is a terrible idea and goes against everything FOSS stands for, anyway it will probably hurt FOSS more than it will help it. Anyone and port FOSS applications to any OS since it is open source. It would really suck to not be able to use FOSS applications in all enviorments (thats whats awesome about FOSS!) since sometimes I, along with many others have to use windows or os X for compatibility.

[insane_alien]

the whole point of open source is that anyone can use/modify/improve it.

if the source is freely available then i can be ported to anything.

horrible idea.

[Blue Heron]

as I alway said - Linux needs closed source developers involved for a higher diversity of programs and better programs

[MONODA]

as I alway said - Linux needs closed source developers involved for a higher diversity of programs - better programs
*smacks self on head and sighs*

[Foster Grant]

The best way to sell the concept and philosophy of open source to the masses is to make sure the masses can see what open-source software can do. Consider some open-source apps that either are cross-platform now or are headed that way:

o OpenOffice
o AbiWord
o KOffice
o Scribus
o Inkscape
o Pidgin
o Firefox
o Thunderbird
o Evolution
o Amarok
o Songbird
o GnuMoney
o Krita

The power and ability of those apps (which are free as in air) do more to sell open-source computing to the Windows-using mainstream audience than any attempt to show off a FOSS operating system.

[MONODA]

why do you even care what people think of GNU/Linux FOSS? does it really matter? use what you like and let others use what they like, stop trying to be just like the other monopolistic companies with vender lock-in.

[gsmanners]

On the contrary, we need to make sure that the *only* apps worth using on Windows are all open source. This way, migrating to Linux will seem the natural inevitable choice.

[MONODA]

On the contrary, we need to make sure that the *only* apps worth using on Windows are all open source. This way, migrating to Linux will seem the natural inevitable choice.
exactly.

[jespdj]

First of all, you have to be aware that "free software" does not necessarily mean that it does not cost any money.

The philosophy of Ubuntu, Linux and many other programs released under licenses such as the GPL is that they are free as in speech - not necessarily free as in beer. That Ubuntu, Linux and many other programs are also free as in beer (i.e. do not cost money) is nice, but that's not what the philosophy is about.

I think it is silly to propose that Windows users should pay money, while users of other operating systems get the same software for free. People should be free to choose what operating system and what software they run. The idea goes right against the GPL philosophy, which is that anyone should be able to do with software whatever (s)he wants, without restrictions (other than that you need license derivative works under the GPL too).

[maniacmusician]

While open source programs can, in principle, be ported to whatever OS, it's not always technically feasible, or at least, not always very easy. A lot of programs make use of features that are unique to FOSS-based environments, and it can get nasty porting those, and having to write code to create the support for some actions on other OS's that linux-based systems usually ship with.