Although I know it's impossible to win a discussion with aseigo (I even wouldn't win them when I would write in my mother tongue) I try to ask some questions and show my point of view.
For me it looks like the fanatic linux guys (the one from the other side aren't better) are afraid of loosing something when a program is running on both os. But nobody could explain what they think they'll loose. You say when an app is available on windows too, they user never comes to the idea to switch to linux. I say - if the program is not available on windows, the user will never use it at all and also will never know that this program is available on linux.
Like you don't see a plan how the porting to windows can make the free os more attractive, I don't see a plan how you want to convince the windows users to switch to linux. Do you really think that creating nice programs and telling a windows user how good this program works on linux is the best way to make him switch to linux? You may say that he can use a live cd - but I don't think that using a live cd for a few hours is the right way to gain new users...
And you don't have to boggle from us - we don't use the win32 api more than you use the linux-kernel api. ;)
Maybe a sentence why I don't use linux as my primary platform. I really don't know why. I maybe easily could switch to linux. Nearly all programs I use (non of them is a kde app because it's currently not possible to use a kde app on windows...) are available on both platforms or have a (more or less equivalent) counterpart. It's just a matter of taste - and isn't this what foss stands for - having the opportunity to use what you want and don't get stuck to a specific operating system?
One note for Derek Kite: It's just stupid what you say. Either you use a framework and learn to use it (with all it advantages and disadvantages) or let it be. It's totally nonsense to blame a platform independent framework like Qt to not support all platofrm specific goodies.
Samstag, 23. Juni 2007
Abonnieren
Kommentare zum Post (Atom)
12 Kommentare:
I'll take the freedom to guess that as a Windows user and developer, you don't quite find the freedom aspect of open source software all too important, quite possibly you rather enjoy the development methodology, or the usefulness of the applications once they are ported, or the community, or you're doing it for your employer.
That's ok, open source works in a way that people with different motives come together to work on something collaboratively.
But I dare to assume that the majority of KDE developers find it very important that KDE survives on the long term, and that the convenience of Windows users is a rather secondary goal. Aaron's goal is not to restrict users in their freedom of choice, his goal is to ensure the long-term viability of KDE, and open source in general.
Windows, as good or bad it might be as an operating system, poses a threat to the long-term viability of open source, because Microsoft actively fights open source. And that's what Aaron has consequently been trying to communicate to us - I guess you don't know his "original" article, it explains his motivations.
All in all, this is just another form of the positions on BSD vs. GPL: is it a good idea to restrict people in order to protect software and its freedom on the long term?
Personally, I find it important that neither Microsoft nor Apple nor Adobe have control over what the user may or may not do. And as long as they have enough power in the marketplace to force "standards" on other people (video codecs, DRM, proprietary browser plugin technologies, protocols, ...), open source is still in danger.
I want open source to get to a point where unilateral standards won't be widely accepted anymore. And that might mean not to do everything that can be done.
Remember the US government that avoids measures against climate change, because it benefits the American economy in the short term? In my opinion, that's exactly the same thing as this issue.
So, nobody here goes against Windows per se, or against people who use it. We just worry about the future of open source, and in consequence, of computing itself. It's your decision what you think about this, but being a "freedom" guy has nothing to do with religiousness about an operating system. It's about who has control about computing, and how not to hand off control to people who pursue goals that are hostile to open source and users in general.
Jakob Petsovits: You write that Microsoft is a threat to open source, and I don't think you will find anyone here to disagree with you on that point. Microsoft has too much power to dictate standards, and they will surely continue to use that power to hurt open source.
However, this is not particularly relevant to this discussion of whether KDE apps on Windows are a good thing or not. You don't provide any evidence that keeping KDE apps off Windows will hurt Windows market share more than having some of them available.
Although Aaron claims that individual apps don't make it more likely for someone to switch OS, he also provides no evidence to this, and there is a lot of counterevidence. For example, big migrations from Windows to Linux switch the apps first, and then the OS (see Munich).
KDE apps on windows can do more to hurt microsoft, because their use will encourage the use of free standards. If some people use KOffice, then they will lend support to Opendocument instead of Microsoft Office. If some people use Amarok then they might use Magnatune instead of whatever Microsoft media shop there is.
Just like Firefox. If Firefox was never available on Windows, the majority of Firefox users wouldn't exist, and the web would be almost 100% IE. Due to the switchers, we are finally at a point where Microsoft can no longer easily dictate a standard for the web, because ~20-30% of users don't use their browser.
the point is, and Aaron acknowledges this: it's not black or white. Of course, having FOSS apps on Windows has advantages. We might gain more developers, we might gain more users. But Aaron's argument (and, for the record, I agree with him) is that Linux is our main platform. We must not get too dependend on Microsoft, as it's a uncertain and sometimes downright hostile environment. So it's a bad idea to limit an handicap apps so they can run on Windows and/or Mac OS X. Even when this handicap is not in features, but 'just' in complexity and performance.
Too much (or any increase in) complexity is a much larger problem in FOSS than you might think. It makes it harder to maintain applications (and we have limited resources), and it makes it harder to get new people into the codebase.
As long as it's mostly 'free' (in resources) to bring apps to Windows, I think it's a good idea. We showcase the good things available on linux. But we should not spend too much on bringing apps to Windows.
superstoned,
see now we are getting somewhere! :-) I totally agree with you that crippling an app just so it can work on windows is a really poor idea.
To continue with the Amarok example, we have several features in discussion that would be difficult or impossible to implement properly on windows, and our stance is to add these to the *nix version and leave out these features from the windows version. This is also one of these places where the user could be notified that, unfortunately his current platform does not allow for this feature, for full functionality, we recommend using Amarok on *nix.
Leo: On the one hand, my comment was supposed to point out that it's not "fanatic linux guys" with unexplainable fears, but something with quite thoughtful reasoning. On the other hand, I wanted to state that open source doesn't always mean "do whatever you want", everything you do also comes with a certain responsibility.
Personally, I tend to lean to Aaron's side, but I'm not quite as convinced as he is that KDE on Windows and Mac is a bad thing. It's a difficult question, and both sides do have good arguments.
Anyways, what I really don't like is the "it won't make a difference anyways" attitude of the original article. Every single dedicated person makes a big difference, and so does Christian. KDE will become what we believe it can become.
> For me it looks like the fanatic
> linux guys (the one from the other
> side aren't better) are afraid of
> loosing something
Hmmmmm. Do you want to support open source platforms, and have people support and continue to see the success of open source applications?
> But nobody could explain what they
> think they'll loose.
Wasted time and effort bolstering support for a proprietary OS controlled by a company that just doesn't like open source applications mostly.
Porting applications like Amarok is based on an extremely optimistic premise that, just by virtue of it being available on Windows, users will then see the need to run exactly the same application that they already have on a free and open source platform.
That's stretching logic and current evidence quite a bit.
> I don't see a plan how you want to
> convince the windows users to switch
> to linux.
Give them the best development platform, and through that, give them the best applications that they just can't get by running Windows. The motivation to switch then comes to a tipping point. Spending an inordinate amount of time and effort porting to Windows just takes all that motivation away.
It worked for Microsoft. The evidence that this has worked is that people are talking about porting applications like Amarok to Windows in the first place! It's a circular piece of logic that just won't square.
> Do you really think that creating
> nice programs and telling a windows
> user how good this program works on
> linux is the best way to make him
> switch to linux?
No. Once a user has the application running on Windows, and they don't have to do anything, they will simply have no motivation to switch at all.
You actually think that porting an application to Windows, and getting people to use it, will actually motivate those users to switch their OS to run exactly the same application that they're already running?!
> but I don't think that using a live
> cd for a few hours is the right way to
> gain new users...
You're right. It's about creating a platform people have confidence in installing. If people don't have that then there's something wrong, and porting applications to Windows isn't going to solve it.
>And you don't have to boggle from us
> - we don't use the win32 api more than
> you use the linux-kernel api.
Ahhhh. But how far do you go in integrating better with the Windows environment, rather than the KDE one, when people start demanding it more?
> Maybe a sentence why I don't use
> linux as my primary platform. I really
> don't know why.
Perhaps you should try and answer that question first, rather than coming up with some ill conceived solution?
>isn't this what foss stands for -
> having the opportunity to use what you
> want and don't get stuck to a specific
> operating system?
Yes. It also stands for supporting FOSS to ensure its long-term viability, and treating those operating systems nicely who are nice to you.
>It's totally nonsense to blame a
> platform independent framework like Qt
> to not support all platofrm specific
> goodies.
Ahhh, well. That's the trade-off that you have to make when you port applications like Amarok to Windows ;-).
But Aaron's argument (and, for the record, I agree with him) is that Linux is our main platform.
Yes, that's because (stable) KDE only runs on X11. There's a large number of (open source) developers, who write software for Windows and Mac users as well. They don't even consider KDE as a base for their apps for this reason alone.
What I really don't get, is why you always want to get the Windows users. You have to clearly distinguish the attitude of the users. Many Windows users will harm FOSS, because they have no understanding of freedom. I don't think producing a big hype around FOSS will improve my technical possibilities compared to now anyhow. You can recognize that at the moment with the patent discussions. New distributors and their users, yes I point on Novell here, threaten the FOSS community more than serious long-term community members. It would have been better when they would have never joined the community. I have to acknowledge that I use OpenOffice regularly and that there are great opportunities in moving commercial software to open source, but maybe the price to pay for that innovation will be, as stated above, unconcievable high in long-term future.
Please don't forget that technologies can not be seen without the people giving them their very meaning! The big threat here is that FOSS gets seriously commercialized. One will find a way to get cash out of it and I and most likely many of you won't like it!
In my opinion we have to keep decent with our market plans. It makes much more sense to try to get the best software for us and maybe some other serious FOSS users than world domination on the commercial market. FOSS as principle of sharing work is in large parts a non capitalistic movement today and is not yet integrated in the market seriously.
My conclusion therefore is that we could selectively port applications to Windows, but that we should definetly limit this and try to use it as a motivation to switch. This is not new, but I mean a clear focus on getting the user to switch the platform, if he takes his freedom seriously and leave him behind if he's not. This really is not about the technological point of view, but of keeping the understanding of FOSS consistant and serious, so we won't loose this freedom. A FOSS developer on Windows has simply not the same quality to software freedom than a FOSS developer on a GNU-like platform. This is more important to me than converting my friends to Linux users. They have to find out themselves, I can only offer them the information and some help and maybe a bit of discussion.
Of course I wish everybody to use free software, but this everybody has to know what free means, otherwise he won't ever use free software...
But Aaron's argument (and, for the record, I agree with him) is that Linux is our main platform.
Yes, that's because (stable) KDE only runs on X11. There's a large number of (open source) developers, who write software for Windows and Mac users as well. They don't even consider KDE as a base for their apps for this reason alone.
True, true. What I meant was not really Linux perse, but any FOSS platform. The kdelibs ppl work hard to ensure you can port any app to windows and Mac OS X, so those developers you talk about can use the KDE 4 infrastructure if they want.
Free Grammar-Nazi service: replace "loose" with "lose". If you "loose" your rope you can use it again, but if you lose it, well, you are without rope :)
Kommentar veröffentlichen