Linked by David Adams on Tue 21st Dec 2004 17:45 UTC, submitted by Lumbergh
Editorial A KDE developer opines that the move to port the top open source applications to Windows will undermine the potential for a widely-used open source desktop operating system.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I thought the point of...
by crystalattice on Wed 22nd Dec 2004 04:33 UTC

free/open-source software was freedom to choose. Yes, I know the story behind the GNU project and the freedom to do want you want w/ the code. But isn't that that just a rewording of "I have the freedom to use the software I want, how I want, when I want, etc."? So if OSS is ported to Windows, Mac, et al. then the user is now given the choice to choose the "right" app for the job. Granted, they may still be tied into the MS BS, but that's their choice.

People will choose the system that works for them, assuming they have a choice (thinking corporate users here). Regardless, if someone feels they need to use Windows because it has Autocad or Maya but they also choose FF and Thunderbird because of security, then that's great.

The thing people fail to realize is that OSS is only a "true" benefit to code-monkeys. Average user not only doesn't know how to code but could care less. It's the code hackers that can "roll their own patches" that OSS was originally marketed to (mostly).

However, if the masses are given the choice between free software that can be patched in hours vs. the "MS special" that takes days/weeks to fix (if ever), then everybody wins. At a minimum it should cut down on stupid viruses. If they don't have the need to control their system by using *nix, then don't force them. Reality is that until *nix becomes as user friendly as Windows, most people won't change. People fear change and telling them to read the man pages for a command or fix their iptables to get their firewall working won't win them over.