OSNews

I would like to challenge your opinion that porting KDE to other platforms hinders Linux adoption.

It shows people the sort of software they can expect on a full-blown Linux system.

If it wasn't for software such as The GIMP and Firefox on Windows, there would be little chance I would be using Linux full-time as I do now.

I would prefer to use Krita on windows over GIMP, if or when a port becomes available.

I'm interested too, but I'm worried whether the space reqs will be practical. The Ars Technica article said their test KDE install took ~600MB. How much will just Krita need? For comparison, IIRC the GIMP takes about 40MB (including GTK in its program folder, I think).

Likewise, I too would not have tried GNU/Linux if it were not for other FOSS programs having been ported to Windows.

Running the FOSS programs on Windows and watching the rapid improvement from version to version for programs like Mozilla/Firefox and OpenOffice, and also being exposed at the same time to "freeware" which was actually just "adware" (mostly download managers) ... I became curious as to what exactly was the essential difference between "free software" and "freeware", and how to tell them apart (so as not to waste my time with any more adware/spyware/nagware). That was exactly how I became aware of Linux, the GPL and FOSS in the first place.

From that point it was just a small step forward to switch the entire software stack on my computers over to FOSS software.

That experience almost defined the word "liberation" to me.

I think I speak for many when asking 'what are you waffling about?'

Seriously, if you have a point to make you could try by actually explaining what it is your trying to say.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you have a hart felt and probably even valid point, it's just really hard to figure out what that possible could be.

WTF??

GNU has nothing at all to do with Linux.

Linux is a kernel.
http://kernel.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel

GNU is a whole range of utilities that make up a significant portion of the OS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Project
http://www.gnu.org/

This is GNU software:
http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/
(Note: there is no claim at all to the Linux kernel being made here).

GNU software makes up approximately 28% of a typical GNU/Linux distribution. The Linux kernel itself is about 3%
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

GNU has its own kernel (but no-one uses it much):
http://directory.fsf.org/project/hurd/

There is also such a thing as GNU/Solaris:
http://www.nexenta.org/os

... the point is you can make up a working GNU system without the Linux kernel and still have something useful, but Linux without GNU is nothing.



Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion, I suppose.

Here is an opposing one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy


You yourself said: "Every OS has many parts, many components." I agree. I would also point out that in any GNU/linux distribution, the biggest single piece by a long way is the GNU software that is included.

And now for the truly corny bit (which at least has the one redeeming feature that it shows the relative sizes of things):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gnu-and-penguin-color.png

Edited 2008-01-24 12:08 UTC

wtf? The FSF was successful before Linux was a twinkle in Linus' eye. That's for starters.

FSF people no more jump from bridges than Apple or Microsoft customers/users do. It's in the human nature to copy others. So, how do you lay the blame for that solely at the feet of the FSF?

It's ungrateful bastards like you who bash the FSF that really make me irate. I'll say the same to you, as I say to others - if you don't like the FSF, remove any FSF originated software from your system and go and find a nice replacement. Have fun.

This new ex Windows brigade that has hit Linux in the past few years is the worst thing to happen to Linux imho. The Linux community could have well and truly done without you lot.

Dave

However, these almost certainly weren't kRandomUtility and kYetAnotherTetrisClone.

The killer apps, which usually win new believers over are those like Firefox, Thunderbird + Lightning, OpenOffice, GNU Emacs, Scribus (which depends on Qt, but not on KDE).

I cannot think of any KDE based application that would be impressive enough to be used for proselytizing Windows users. Maybe I've missed something, as I am mostly using GNOME or IceWM.

I think Amarok is by far the most impressive KDE app that could pull in new users. However, a lot of people are tied to iTunes or Windows Media through DRM.

K3B is very nice, but most people get free burning software with their computer, and that wouldn't really cause someone to switch IMO.

KOffice has the potential to be very impressive, but it isn't quite there yet. I know they're planning big things for the 2.0 release.

Kontact is another app that has the potential to replace Outlook, but isn't quite there yet.

And I think Konqueror/Dolphin may end up being popular on Windows/Mac as well. Konqueror may be the 1st good Webkit browser on Windows (Safari sucks there)

I'd say you have missed lots, the quality and diversity of KDE applications are impressive. Some of the applications in the default KDE modules are good examples, like the kdeedu module with applications like Marble, Kalzium and KStars. Koffice shows lots of promise, Krita is one application going to raise eyebrows on windows users. Kate are by many considered a better editor than Emacs and Kontact/KMail/KOrganizer compares very well against similar applications.

In addition you have the range of high quality 3rd party KDE applications. Applications like TaskJuggler, digiKam, KTorrent, Semantik, Tellico and BasKet Note Pads.

I completely agree with you. And, I just posted regarding the same issue on the other OSNews Article regarding Linux adoption. I won't repost. I'll just stick the link here: http://www.osnews.com/permalink?297455

"It shows people the sort of software they can expect on a full-blown Linux system. "

Thats the problem

I thinks it's all right to port GNU/Linux software to windows, as long as it runs like shit in windows like all windows software ported to GNU/Linux does Hell even Firefox gets more attention and care in windows than it does GNU/Linux, sad but true

As long as it gives the user a taste of what they could really have if they ran a full blown GNU/Linux OS, then it's done it's job.

Just a minor quibble.

You can't readily port Linux itself to Windows. GNU software ... by all means, but Linux (the kernel) itself ... can really only replace the Windows kernel.

Your best option is to run Linux virtualized ... but then it still isn't running under Windows, is it?

There is always Cygwin ... but that is akin to "transforming" the Windows kernel to support GNUish userland code. It still isn't running Linux on Windows.

You can always set up a dual-boot system:
http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/
... but that certainly isn't running Linux on Windows, it is just having a choice of which of a number of OS'es to run on a single machine. BTW, with a dual-boot system, you can have the Linux OS see and use the Windows filesystem:
http://www.ntfs-3g.org/
... but it is far harder to have the Windows system fully supporting the Linux filesystem(s).

Just to prove that nothing in software is totally impossible, there is always coLinux:
http://www.colinux.org/

It just goes to show, doesn't it, that GNU/Linux working in with Windows goes infinitely further than Windows working in with GNU/Linux.

I mean there is Wine:
http://winehq.org/
... but of course that is not written by Microsoft, is it?

Looking at it ... it turns out that none of this "wroking together" stuff is written by Microsoft. Funny, that.

BTW ... Windows software that is truly ported to Linux runs just fine. You will probably have trouble running Windows binaries under Wine on a Linux system ... but bear in ind those binaries are Windows applications that haven't been ported to Linux ... but can still be made to run anyway.

Edited 2008-01-24 22:54 UTC

If it wasn't for software like the gimp I WOULD be using OSS / Linux.

[jest]
Wasn't the gimp created to put people off OSS and keep them using Photoshop?
[/jest]

Nah. It was created as a perfectly good alternative for people who can't afford or don't want to pay a grand for Photoshop.

I know you meant it as a joke, but too many people completely disregard that aspect. The fact that most of the Windows software pool is made out of commercial applications: expensive, not open, with a deployment model that makes injecting malware a piece of cake. Whereas the opposite is true for Linux software. How's that for TCO? But of course, if you shop on torrent sites you can afford to make 1-on-1 comparisons.

I don't think that it is bad for Linux adoption. Just imagine if you could replace the Outlook/Exchange kombo on windows with kontact and some standards base serverside komponents on windows you would lower the barrier to to adopt Linux in many companies.

Mail and calendaring is mission critical to most businesses and unless you can't do that fully cross platform, you will not even try to go cross platform, and if you are not going to go cross platform you will chose the platform with the software that best fits your business in general, and you will not switch to something cheeper in places where it otherwise would be possible.

Windows in itself have no value to the user, its just an necessary evil to run familliar windows apps. If you get familliar with KDE apps why pay for windows if you can get Linux for free?

I think this is true. In fact, I said that in a recent post to OSNews (http://www.osnews.com/permalink?295348). It would be to open source's advantage if the OS could be more or less a commodity. Look at all of the *nix variations. They all run the same applications. But, you choose your OS based on personal preferences regarding things like security and stability. Anybody using Linux today could also be using BSD or vice versa.

Have you heard of Scalix and Zimbra?

http://www.zimbra.com/products/product_editions.html
http://www.zimbra.com
http://www.scalix.com/community/
http://www.scalix.com

Yes, I have heard of them, and I have even tested Zimbra. The problem is that many people want a real desktop program as well as a web client, because that is what they are used with from Outlook/Exchange.
There is also the problem with personal cryptographic keys when using web clients. Many users want to have them on media that are in their own control, and not on some far away server. Another reason is that Ajax based are a bit slow if you are going to manipulate mailboxes with 20.000 or mor messages.

If you want people to change their habits you can't just offer them software that does the same thing, you need to offer software that does the same thing in a better way, doing it in a worse way is an absolute no no, even if the difference is ever so small.

However, when you combine kontact with some web based you have a windows killer. I'm not sure how well Zimbra and Kontact would work together, as far as I know kontact uses imap mailboxes for storing events, notes and todo lists, while Zimbra uses caldav if I remember correctly, but there might be some solution to that.

I think IMAP is only used for calendar when talking to the Kolab groupware server, otherwise IIRC GroupDAV.

For a list of currently supported groupware systems see
http://kontact.kde.org/groupwareservers.php

My guess is that support for properly documented system can be added quickly if respective requests are made

There's no single, simple method for connecting Kontact to a Zimbra server. However, it is possible to access all the data in a Zimbra server from within Kontact:

* connect to the mail store via IMAP. Even gives you access to shared folders, although you do have to read the "share invite" messages in the web client to activate the shared folders

* connect to the global address list via LDAP

* connect to your personal calendar via the "Calendar in External File" resource and point it at https://<server>/home/<user>/Calendar/. You just have to share it to your e-mail address from within the web client

* connect to any shared calendars you have access to via the same method

* connect to your files/briefcase areas via Konqueror's webdav:// KIO-slave

* connect to the IM server via XMPP (or whatever the Jabber protocol is called) via Kopete

It's not an-every-joe solution, but it is possible to do for those power-users that like Kontact.

Quoted for truth. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but it seems to me that the number 1 reason for people staying away from linux has to be complete unfamiliarity with the various apps (as well as the OS itself); some might not admit to that but from my experience it's been true. Most users would rather stick with the devil they know, even if that devil is constantly poking their rear ends with its pitchfork. If KDE apps do become even mildly popular then we start going down that slippery slope: "Linux has these apps, too? And it's free? Then why the hell am I paying Microsoft all this money?!?!"

That is a sentiment which will undoubtedly have the chairs flying once again in Redmond.

So by the same token, Firefox has set back the cause of linux adoption? Would the OSS community have been better served if Firefox only ran on *nix?

Actually, examples like Firefox just go to show that the issues of FOSS applications and FOSS operating systems are decoupled as far as end users are directly concerned. Of course, having a healthy desktop software stack will help a kernel become more popular (if desktop environment is something it strives for). But modern software tends to be portable. At some point, if properly made, all major kernels and OS's should be able to benefit from a common pool of applications. Things like Firefox, Thunderbird or OpenOffice are spearheading this tendency because everybody needs a browser, an email client or an office app. But they also have to be built on a portable base. This is where things like Qt/KDE or GTK come in. If the backend is portable (or ported) and the language too, at some point the rest of the software deluge follows. GTK and Qt have been portable for a long time. It was high time a desktop environment followed. I mean, how many portable desktop environments do you know? How can that not be a good thing, to be able to have as large a pool of applications (good old FOSS apps, not just any junkware) on as many platforms as possible?

Sure it does. At least KStars is demoed in the keynote speech.

Yes. KSTARS is included and works in Windows just as well as with your favorite Linux desktop.

20 minutes after reading the article I downloaded & installed it onto my WinXP side.

I know 20 mins is a long time but I humbly ask for consideration. I was waiting to pick up my son and was reading OSNews on my PDA Phone. It took a few minutes to get home, so any slack is appreciated.

On the plus side, I read a previous comment that stated this appryoach may not earn new users for Linux in general. I have to say that I definitely DO think this will help linux adoption.

Why? People will probably be interested in seeing Linux in action because they'd be interested in seeing the KDE Desktop in Linux. The environment it is designed for.

My hat tips to the KDE Team for their efforts.

Bravo!

No way! For me its knetwalk and ksokoban FTW!

It doesn't use X. It's native and they mostly head for native apps, not doing whole desktop.

Dude, you can already can use KDE 3.5 applications on OS X using X11 for _years_.

The whole point in the OS X port of KDE4 is to get rid of that X11 dependency and to have native KDE appliations on OS X that integrate more nicely.

And what the point is? Of course, the KDE applications. For example, you get a decent mail client if the rather basic OS X mail client doesn't fit your needs.

musikCube / XMPlay
but yeah no players near amaroK or rhytmbox.

I recently found AIMP2. it looks like a winamp clone, but is way better imo.
http://www.aimp.ru

Edited 2008-01-24 01:48 UTC

Coolplayer
http://coolplayer.sourceforge.net/

Foobar 2000 is one of the best: http://www.foobar2000.org/

Heh... now this is a sign of the the times, you know Linux and FOSS is beginning to reach critical mass when the knock offs become better than the apps they were intended to imitate...

--bornagainpenguin

Other than a compiler and some knowledge of the platform, you don't need porting tools at all. It's mostly removing thoughtless X11'isms and unixisms, changing the library structure around a bit sometimes and when committing the changed back taking care you haven't fallen into the trap of thinking filenames are case-insensitive but case-preserving. It's a lot of work because there's so much code, but you don't need anything special. (Except for a windows or OS X system, of course).

that's the beauty of it: you don't really port apps. as long as you aren't using any OS specific API calls or facilities (e.g. assuming /proc filesystems, using native threading APIs or other such stuff) it's mostly just making it compile on the host compiler (e.g. visual studio or xcode). there are some differences here in there in what the compilers will accept, but other than that all of the platform specific stuff happens below the application in the libraries.

Tux Racer isn't a KDE application.