Stories (RSS)
Supporting FOSS on non-free platforms?
(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Techworld has an article up on KOffice 2.0 alpha 8, running on Windows. As most people already know, the KDE folks have been working to make sure that KDE 4 stuff runs on Windows and Mac OS X as well as Linux, *BSD, and assorted free software platforms.
In general, I think this is a good thing — I’ve long been on record supporting shipping some proprietary software on Linux if it means getting more people on Linux. Better to run a 98% FOSS desktop, in my opinion, than to be stuck with a completely proprietary system with a few pieces of free/open source software.
But I wonder, strategically, whether porting KDE apps to Windows and Mac OS X is going to lead to people switching, or if it’s going to lead to people not switching because they can get the FOSS apps on other platforms and have less motivation to switch.
On the one hand, I think so — it makes it much easier for people to switch if they can do it gradually. Get used to Firefox, KOffice or OpenOffice.org, and all the nifty programs from the KDE folks on top of Windows or Mac OS X, and it’s that much easier to switch a little down the road because a Linux environment with those apps is going to be much more familiar.
On the other hand, if you already have a set of nice FOSS apps running on an OS you’re familiar with, what’s the motivation to switch? I think it’s great that Firefox is garnering such a big slice of the browser market, for example, but I don’t know too many people who’ve switched from Windows to Linux because of FF.
I’d be curious to hear opinions either way. Is KDE 4 for Windows/OS X going to bring new users to Linux, or just boost the amount of FOSS used on those platforms?
Next time they have to spend money on a Windows upgrade or anti-virus subscription, they might think again and realize how easy it would be for them to switch to Linux.
True. That’s a +1 for FOSS on Windows and Mac OS X…
I am forced to use Windows at work by my employer, but I run linux at home. Learning one set of applications for Windows and a different set of applications for linux is counterproductive. One of the great joys for me over the past five years has been the increasing availability of multiplatform applications. Emacs, gimp, firefox, Audacity, Workrave, Gramps, OpenOffice, R. when I look for a new application for a specific need. I strive first for multiplatform applications.
It’s all about the applications, not the operating system!
I completely agree!
Although cross-platform applications may stop or slow some people from switching, they also make it much easier to switch if you want to. Now there is choice!
As an IT professional, I doubt I’ll ever be free of Windows so having cross-platform tools like Firefox, Thunderbird, Keepass, Truecrypt, Google Earth, OpenOffice, Komodo Edit, etc. is a real god-send.
Regards, Julian
http://linux.knightnet.org.uk
Actually, this is one of the factors I moved over to linux full time. I was already using Gaim, Firefox, hadn’t been using/needing MS Office (also familiar with OpenOffice) much and had just picked up a cheap used laptop after moving to Japan and leaving everything else I had behind. Being familiar with quite a few opensource apps really helped. Instead of grabbing pirated stuff as I had done in the past I went ahead and wiped out windows and made Linux my Desktop with no windows fallback/dual boot. It’ll also be a lot easier for me to show people cool apps like Amarok and let them get to know it. Maybe one day people can say, wait a second, I’m paying how much for Windows? and Antivirus software? and Most of my apps are OpenSource and run in Linux … maybe I can give Linux a real shot.
You seem to consider that making people switch to Linux is the ultimate goal. Yes, Linux a nice OS but it won’t bring peace and happiness to the world, you know…
Should people have to switch OS just to use some software?
What really matters is bringing more great software to people. The OS really _doesn’t_ matter.
And, of course, for software developers, reaching platforms besides Linux means getting a _whole_ lot more users. And a bigger community means more bugs reports and (hopefully) more contributors
Each time I see OSS people saying that “porting a FOSS application to proprietary platform X or Y is not a good idea”, I wonder what’s the point of making great software if you don’t want anyone to actually be able to use it.
Well, having as many people as possible switch to Linux is *my* goal…
And I do believe that there’s a lot of overlap between KDE developers and Linux enthusiasts, but you’re right to point out that many software developers aren’t interested in Linux as an end goal.
But, for those who do want to get Linux to switch - what’s the right answer?
Obviously, if the goal is just “get more users,” then it makes *perfect* sense to port to Windows and Mac OS X and any major platform with a lot of users. If the goal is “get more LINUX users,” well, then it’s a matter of whether FOSS on Windows / Mac will ultimately support that, or go the other way.
Each time I see OSS people saying that “porting a FOSS application to proprietary platform X or Y is not a good idea”, I wonder what’s the point of making great software if you don’t want anyone to actually be able to use it.
I would agree, but some folks write software in order to promote FOSS — and it’s a concern if the software runs on proprietary platforms that users will stop there.
Thanks for the perspective!
Yet they don’t seem to be aware that restricting the target user base is potentially _damaging_ the whole FOSS ecosystem.
We (FOSS people) say that we want to promote freedom but it seems we are always trying hard to devise ways to force users to switch to what we consider the best platform.
It’s not a real “vendor lock-in” since it’s free software, open standards and all that, but the approach is not so different: “In order to use my software, use my platform”.
Why be so rigid of them switching to Linux?
In the worst case, you can see their Windows OS as just the *kernel*, and an ugly desktop, Explorer. But the rest of the stuff could be open source.
If you’d really want, there could even be a nice open source desktop environment on it, that replaces explorer completely. … and maybe some decent services which implement posixs (sorry cygwin… you just don’t do it.)
In this way, to the user would interface with only open source products. This could really mean that in the future, they might not care about their kernel too much. So, they could switch to linux.
If we keep on evangelizing open software, maybe we should also try to remain open.
By switch, do you mean “switch very soon after trying open source apps on my OS” or “switch at some point in the future, maybe sooner, maybe later”?
If we are looking for people to switch to Linux very soon after they use open source apps, I think we will be disappointed and think it was a bad strategy to port those apps.
If we are willing to wait (possibly years) for people to switch to Linux after trying open source software, I do not see how the strategy would be bad.
1) They are exposed to new, free software in a comfortable (to them) environment (OSS positive)
2) The software impresses them, and they use it instead of proprietary software (OSS positive)
3) They, eventually, discover community support concepts (OSS positive)
4) They get used to good quality, free software (OSS positive)
5) Future software decisions will be OSS-aware if not OSS-biased (OSS positive)
6) Proprietary software (apps and OS) will eventually cause problems - crashes, viruses, upgrade costs, company goes out of business, etc. (proprietary negative)
7) Good experiences with OSS will help breed more OSS-friendly decisions in the future (OSS positive)
Short Version
Linux = OSS and apps = OSS. I believe the more positive experiences someone has with OSS, the more likely they are to try more OSS.
Question: Does “porting” Firefox to a proprietary operating system help or hurt the adoption of other OSS software?
Another question: Does “porting” Firefox to a proprietary operating system help or hurt the adoption of other browsers?
I think the future of the OS is quite blurred. Aside from the cost perspective (which I’m sure will change), I see no real value in the OS and the application stack (down to the OS boundary) will be the important thing. If that’s FOSS, great. If the FOSS community is to live up to its own marketing, then let people choose, this includes the OS. It’s a religious thing I guess, you’re either very Catholic or just Christened Catholic (i.e., OpenOffice on GNU/Linux vs OpenOffice on Win32/MacOSX)
With productivity apps it’s really important to give people the choice and not force them into vendor lock-in. I used Windows in the past. Then I moved to an Apple laptop with Mac OS X. Later I got a PC and installed Linux on it and since my Mac broke, I use Linux exclusively.
All that time I used OpenOffice and moving my documents from one platform to the other was absolutely painless.
If you want people to move to Linux, fine. Make (openSUSE) Linux an OS that people want to use. Make it easier to use. Let its benefits speak for themselves.
Offering FOSS apps for multiple platforms does not only make the users’ life easier, it also gives the FOSS projects the potential for more developers. E.g. the music notation feature in KOffice 2 was developed under Mac OS X. With the sheer number of Windows installations there’s an enormous potential for additional KOffice developers. Even if those developers never switch to Linux/*BSD/Solaris, users of free platforms benefit from their work. While the Mac community does not have that many programmers, it’s a community with many artists and usability experts. This is very noticeable at instant messaging applications. IMHO Adium is the best instant messenger out there. It combines the programming experience from the Linux community (it uses Pidgin’s libpurple) with the aesthetic experience from the Mac community to a polished and popular messenger. As a result, Kopete users can now enjoy the large library of GPL compatible chat styles created for Adium. It’s a win-win situation.
Funny that you use KOffice as example and not the obvious case of Novell offering its edition of OpenOffice.org for Windows :-)…