http://www.osnews.com/story/3618/Is_Free_Software_Always_a_Good_Thing_ Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:16:03 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? When will people stop posting these kinds of articles?

I don't know about anyone else, but I've seen too many of these kinds of articles online. Can we move onto truly important things? Wed, 21 May 2003 23:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? When will people stop posting these kinds of articles?

As soon as people stop whining about paying for software. Wed, 21 May 2003 23:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Adam, many companies are successfully using dual-licensing approaches as they find the GPL and various commercial licenses serve two different market segments and two different sets of needs and concerns.

There are definitely times and places where you want code to be freely available. Think of a publically funded medical expert system, for instance. Free software is appropriate for those projects that have benefit to the community and need safety measures against commercial hijacking. Or all the tools you need to build and maintain such a system. It makes sense to have those tools available to the people who funded their creation so no community, society, or country is unable to access better medical care.

And there are times when a commercial license is appropriate. For instance, when selling product into corporations that need/want/expect a certain level of support from the vendor. MySQL for instance, is available in the corporate market via a commercial license.

The dual license provides both markets with what they need. The freely available open source provides trust to the market, something that we find missing for many commercial-only software products. Parts of many governments are switching to Linux not strictly due to cost, but because they can trust the code. This is why Microsoft hastily put together their governmental source viewing program to stem the tide of migration to Linux.

Also, your article is disingenuous when it comes to Linux:

1. Slow mouse tracking is very fixed in the latest development kernels and with the next stable release of Linux, this issue will no longer exist. The next kernel will also have ALSA, providing a stronger foundation for sound.

2. It is clear to most people that the quality of Windows 2003 is not comparable to that of Linux because the resources available. If the Linux community put in billions of dollars of funding into the next version of Linux and took four years, I'm sure it would be very good as well.

The concept of free software is not new. 'Public domain' software has existed for a long time. However, the FSF/GPL take on free software mandates that the software, including changes, be put back in the public domain. I think that's fair and appropriate for many applications which benefit the public.

Commercial software has also been around a long time and it is not going away anytime soon. However, this software exists largely for applications which do not benefit the public at large and have no public accessibility requirements.

There is typically not a single software license that serves the needs of the commercial software developer and the public domain developer. I think in the coming few years, software multi-licensing will become more popular as it enables both public and commercial benefit. Wed, 21 May 2003 23:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It is clear to most people that the quality of Windows 2003 is not comparable to that of Linux because the resources available. If the Linux community put in billions of dollars of funding into the next version of Linux and took four years, I'm sure it would be very good as well.

That's exactly my point. The resources AREN'T there, because too many Linux users refuse to pay for software. If users would pay for software, companies might be attracted more to the platform, and we'd end up with better software! I don't see how that's disingenuous. Wed, 21 May 2003 23:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I must say that this was one "free software" themed article that I actually enjoyed reading. Honest, down to earth and void of zealotry – Cheers! Wed, 21 May 2003 23:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Free software was never a matter a price.

The important distinction is not between free (as in zero price) and commercial software. It's between free (as in freedom) and proprietary software.

Free (as in freedom) software deserves support, monetary and otherwise. Proprietary software does not.

You should pay for your free software. I do. Thu, 22 May 2003 00:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Not sure I agree with your take on this - as a software company whom is actually making a dual license structure work I see nothing in the article that suggests that this is not an appropriate path. Perhaps I should review it again but I think his read on this is pretty spot on in allot of ways. Note: I said, in allot of ways and not in every way - an important distinction as I don't agree with every point/example in the article. Thu, 22 May 2003 00:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Perhaps an article should be written on all the possible definitions of free(as in free) as recognized by the FSF.

However, IMHO free(as in freedom) means you have the right to buy(as in spend money) or not to buy(as in not spend money) regardless of the assiociated License. Thu, 22 May 2003 00:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The GPL, which I'm assuming your referring to, is not about freedom at all. It's about ensuring that you get something back for the work you've done.

First, commercial software gives immediate returns in the form of money. There is no choice in the matter (well, within the law I suppose).

GPL software on the other hand takes the following attitude. I don't particularly care about money, but I care about code. If you make changes to my free code, I want them. An important point to make is that the owner here is not an individual, but a nonexistent entity. None the less, it is all about returns, not freedom.

If you really wanted to be a nice person, you would release code without expecting ANYTHING in return. This would be FREE software. I would have the freedome to do anything I want with it. The same cannot be said of GPL software. Thu, 22 May 2003 00:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? That's exactly my point. The resources AREN'T there, because too many Linux users refuse to pay for software. If users would pay for software, companies might be attracted more to the platform, and we'd end up with better software! I don't see how that's disingenuous.

You need to look at more than just "users pay for software = good software".

1. You've made the assumption that every need can be best met by a commercial for-profit enterprise. This is not usually the case when it comes to software that is for the public benefit. There are many parallels in the real world as well. Many times public benefit companies cannot be private enterprises because the private enterprises tend to put their needs ahead of the public's needs. Government regulation helps in these matters, but do you want every company that produces software for public benefit to be heavily regulated? That would certainly add overhead and cost, taking away from what benefits can be delivered.

2. Microsoft is funded by years of illegal monopoly money, so there is no comparing what Microsoft can do vs. what the Linux community can do. I will say it again, if you gave Linux billions of dollars in funding and four years (for just one major revision) of a zero market pressure environment, I'm sure you could turn out an amazing OS that would make Windows 2003 look shabby by comparison.

3. Just because something is commercial doesn't mean it is going to be perfect. Take the example of QNX which is privately funded small company that makes a well-regarded OS product. You will find many versions of their OS had problems with the mouse pointer too. By the way, this was well before any cheap/free versions of their OS. There are many many examples of commercial products which are very poor quality.

4. When you examine Linux, you find many price points, from free all the way to enterprise server licenses that cost thousands of dollars. Many Linux users do pay for software. Even on the very low end, with the small but growing Walmart market that Lindows and Lycoris have created, there are more people everyday who are paying for Linux.

5. Many people cannot afford a privately-produced OS. Sure many individuals who don't have the discretionary money to pay for a privately produced OS do not pay for their Linux OS. But many of these people come from much poorer countries than the US and Europe. In Indonesia, desktop Windows costs more than the average person makes in a YEAR. It is unreasonable to think this person is going to buy any Microsoft OS. So this person either pirates Windows or copies Linux from someone.

You yourself are a Windows user and a Linux user. I presume you are paying for your Windows software. Do you refuse to pay for your Linux software? Are you completely unwilling to pay for any Linux software? If you were running a commercial enterprise and needed the benefits and support of Red Hat Enterprise Server, would you refuse to pay for it?

When we look at what is happening today, we find two things.

First, more and more people are paying for open source / free software, one way or another. We see great success in dual licensing, showing that those who are deriving commercial benefit from free/open-source software are willing to pay for it.

Second, we find that many commercial products are low quality. Private enterprise does not result in quality. Good software development results in quality and Linux is very good quality. Linux delivers far more quality per dollar invested than any Microsoft OS. Thu, 22 May 2003 00:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? While I agree that the principals of the FSF are noble,

Cool. I think Richard and company are pretty noble folks as well. Besides that, their principles are noble too!

Andrew B. wrote:
However, IMHO free(as in freedom) means you have the right to buy(as in spend money) or not to buy(as in not spend money) regardless of the assiociated License.

Then I don't think that's in-line with the FSF's meaning of the word. You're thinking of "gratis".

Free (as in freedom) in the FSF sense means that the *software* is free. Regardless of whether or not you pay for it, the source will be freely available if anyone distributes the software. Thu, 22 May 2003 00:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Not necesserilly in price, but the user should still have freedom to modify the product for his or her needs. just like if I buy a couch or whatever, i can do absolutely wahtever I want to it/with it, same should go for software. Thu, 22 May 2003 00:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think the guy has a pretty good point. He didn't say that all software has to be commercial, just that sometimes there are benefits to the commercial approach. I don't think anyone except perhaps Stallman himself can claim otherwise.

It is hard to claim that Free Software does not produce good software. It is, however, equally hard to claim that Free Software produces software that meshes well. The division between KDE/Qt and GNOME/GTK is a perfect example. They both write good software. They do, however, demonstrate the man's point that Free Software doesn't coordinate well with itself. Thu, 22 May 2003 00:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sure, the latest windows may feel good to you, but you have to ask yourself: how long did it take Microsoft to get to that point? MS has been around for more than 20 years, and windows has been under development for almost that long, but until very recently, and their resources notwithstanding, windows sucked big time. It took a lot of effort, mistakes, trials, retrials, before microsoft finally started getting it right. So I don't think it is fair to explain whatever advantages windows has by refering to the fact that it is a commercial and proprietary system. The fact is: windows is maturing with time, and so is linux. In fact, I personally think linux is maturing at a much faster pace than windows.

And if you look at webservers, well, IIS has yet to catch up to its opensource counterpart. And things like postfix and bind and way ahead of their closed source versions. Sure, there's a niche for both closed and open source software, but putting a priori limitations on the possibilities of open source for purely ideological reasons is premature. Thu, 22 May 2003 00:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > how long did it take Microsoft to get to that point?

10 years. All software gets better after ~10 years according to Joel On Software.

> MS has been around for more than 20 years, and windows has been under development for almost that long, but until very recently, and their resources notwithstanding, windows sucked big time.

You have misconceptions here regarding the development of the Windows NT-branch which only started in 1991. And in 1999 they already had a great product out, Windows 2000. The desktop version of it, XP, came 2 years later out. Win2k3 Server is even better.

You can bitch at Win9x and Win3.x if you want, but don't put all Windows in the same bag just because they share the same name. They are using different code and architectures. Thu, 22 May 2003 00:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Adam,

You should get your facts right. Just because one gets the operating system for free (which is becoming more and more a commodity nowadays IMHO) doesn't mean that he/she won't pay for good quality software. There are other major problems concerning this, like the QT licensing, for instance. QT is as powerful and mature as any toolkit available at Windows, but people refuse to pay Trolltech what is due to develop comercial software which I find a little odd, since you can't get MFC at Visual C for free in Windows neither. But I never hear people complaining about Visual Studio.NET licensing or something like that.

Unfortunately, GTK still is not mature as QT but is getting in there fast. The others toolkits are fighting their place at the sun, like wxWindows and FLTK. And the Xlib, which seems to be the Unix standard, is too hard to develop anything on it and is starting to show it age.

Well, The Kompany has been developing comercial software for KDE using QT for a long time now and I'm sure they are pleased with the multi-platform nature of it. They provide a Windows version of most of their software and in some cases, if you buy the version for Windows, you also get the Linux version and vice-versa. Even Adobe itself has turned a licensee of QT to develop Adobe Photoshop Album and they loved it.

See? There is space to comercial software here...

Personally, I don't know anybody that says "Screw Adobe and their Photoshop stuff. We don't need them. We've already got GIMP and GIMP rulez. Everybody knows that!!!" (Please note that I do love GIMP! :-)).

Some people might point that the opensource nature of Linux tends to lead into several versions of slightly incompatible versions of it, what might scare away comercial developers and therefore the Catedral-style should be widely adopted to make things more feasible for those companies. Well, I don't see them porting their apps to FreeBSD neither, which do provides that kind of environment.

My point is... Adobe, Macromedia, Discreet and all the others can port their software for opensource OSes if they want to. Piracy isn't even a good argument since people already get pirated copies of their software in Windows or Mac OS X anyway. Nobody really cares if closed source is what it takes to they do that (only a small minority of zealots would argue against something like that). It's up to them to see if such move fits their needs market-wise.

But to say that it's Linux/BSD users fault's that those companies don't support those systems as they deserve is really naive, to say the least.

DeadFish Man Thu, 22 May 2003 01:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > It's not unreasonable to pay for goods and services, and I don't believe that software should be an exception >
I fully agree!!

The cost for an OS or S/W Applications are irrelevant in the corporate world. They use it to improve their business and to stay competitive. In other words they are investment goods, as robots and other machines are in the car machine manufacturing industry.
Take AutoCad as an example. It costs mega bucks, but there is hardly any machine manufacturer who doesn't use it. The same goes for any other specialiced ( and i include OFFICE as well) Application.
Or SAP. It costs hundred thousands of $. Compared to those figures Xp cost you peanuts. (It comes pre-installed anyway). Thu, 22 May 2003 01:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? May I be wrong but, as far as I know, many developers that use to work in FS projects are employees of big companies like IBM, Oracle, SGI, HP, Red Hat, Suse and so on. And many of them are researchers that work in universities over all world.

Of course, that are hobbyists (and many are professionals) working too, but they are a plus (and sometimes, a BIG plus). And, if you believe in statistics, and know how to interpret them, you can believe that more people looking the code can help fix it.

Also, I like to think that programming is one area of science where the theoretical background can be compensated by creativity, what is a lot harder in others areas. Again, with statistics, there is a good chance of a good idea come to light from this crowd and, if something is wrong, be fixed.

One thing that many people overlook, is that even though programmers at Microsoft, IBM, Oracle and in others companies can't cut and paste FS code on theirs projects, they are free to see it, learn and apply it whether they learned something or not.

Anyway, isn't because exist some big company behind one project that it's going to be a success, the history give many cases that proof it. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I believe this article was writting with a certain amount of naivete. I don't mean to say that Adam Sheinberg isn't knowledgable about linux, but simply that I don't think he is plugged into the way that most users think about free software. He seems of the opinion that free software users insist all of their software should be free. This is further supported by his reply to an above comment: ...because too many Linux users refuse to pay for software..

This assumption is ridiculous. Many linux users I know keep a windows partition for games (which they pay for). I believe transgaming does fine with winex (which people pay for). Crossover Office is constantly being improved and sells plenty of copies despite the fact that it costs money. Linux users don't insist on having all free software. It is just that there aren't many companies making their software available to purchase on linux. Look at Adobe. How long could it possibly take to get a working port of Photoshop or Illustrator on Linux? They have a version for OSX so I am sure it wouldn't require an incredible amount of resources. However, they don't even take the time to try and get wine compatibility. How about Macromedia? There is still no linux shockwave plug-in or dreamweaver.

The reason you see so many open source alternatives in the linux world isn't because of any great refusal to pay for software (although there are those who would like to see a free version of everything). It is because companies refuse to make the investment. Personally, I wouldn't mine seeing every company who doesn't have linux versions of their major software by 2005 go out of business. If that were to kill Adobe or Macromedia, then so be it. They have great products, but they refuse to support a community that has been clamoring for these programs for awhile.

Ask any linux user, chances are they will tell you that commercial software being ported to linux is a good thing. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I just read DeadFishMan's comment after posting that last one and he said pretty much the same thing as I said (even calling Adam naive). Sorry for the reduncancy, but it is good to see that others agree with me. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree with your point, but you make a few errors:

>they don't even take the time to try and get wine compatibility

Do you realize what a support nightmare it would be? Codeweavers works with it. Regular Wine, however, is (no offense to the developers)a hack designed for users. It is not reliable. It's as silly as saying Nintendo should have designed its games with ROM emulator compatibility in mind.

>There is still no linux shockwave plug-in

There has been one (a proprietary one, not the GPL one) for Linux and Moz/NS compatible browsers since forever. Works fine for me.

>If that were to kill Adobe or Macromedia, then so be it. They have great products, but they refuse to support a community that has been clamoring for these programs for awhile.

Just because someone is clamoring for products does not mean that the company can fiscally and otherwise justify porting something. I'm sure the BeOS community would just looove a Photoshop port, but there are too few of them (us?). Linux is still not on a significant amount of desktops. It's a vicious circle--no famous proprietary apps-->no popularity-->no famous proprietary apps. Linux does need a killer app, one that not only performs better (I could say so for much of my Linux software) but has PR appeal. Something of the GIMP's scale but not a replacement for a proprietary product. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? There is a very important point that must be made. Linux has delivered far more quality to the market per software development dollar than any Windows OS.

The fact that so many companies are adopting and using Linux is due to the fact that Linux is a high-quality OS.

Look at the recent big machine benchmarks. There are machines near the top of the list that run Linux. These are machines that are run mission-critical software and you find many of them are running Linux.

A critical factor in the delivery of quality in open source / free software development is that money can be directly targeted on improvements. If my company needs fixes in the USB driver, I can hire someone and have them fix it. There is no such thing available in the commercial software / closed source market. If I need new functionality, I can spend the money and get it built. Again, commercial software / closed source cannot deliver.

The point here is that open source / free software delivers quality software at a much lower cost than commercial software. It also enables the specific evolution of that software in a way that fits the agile enterprises of today.

Microsoft cannot deliver similar benefits to the market. When you go down the Microsoft OS road, you are beholden to Microsoft for all your bug fixes, patches, and improvements. You had better hope they care enough about the welfare of your company. And I hope you are not a competitive ISV as Microsoft is notorious for not fixing the bugs that are preventing their competition from using Windows effectively. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Great, your Windows 2003 setup is working, you like the look and feel, but really, it's not like I care. You just can't customize everything. And why you installed Office on a server?

The thing that I hate the most about Windows and Microsoft products in general is not that is crashes, or the software sucks, etc. but it's the unability to really customize how you want it. That's the beauty of free software.

Of course, newbies doesn't care, but I don't care about them either. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > The GPL, which I'm assuming your referring to, is not
> about freedom at all. It's about ensuring that you get
> something back for the work you've done.

You're wrong. The GPL is about ensuring users' freedoms. It does not require that you publish modifications. It does not ensure that you get something back for the work you've done.

> GPL software on the other hand takes the following
> attitude. I don't particularly care about money, but I
> care about code.

Again, you're wrong. As a free software developer, I care about the freedoms of the users of my software.

> If you make changes to my free code, I
> want them. An important point to make is that the owner
> here is not an individual, but a nonexistent entity. None
> the less, it is all about returns, not freedom.

It's all about the users' freedoms.

> If you really wanted to be a nice person, you would
> release code without expecting ANYTHING in return. This
> would be FREE software.

Then I am a nice person. Thanks. :-) Also, the GPL is a FREE software license.

> I would have the freedome to do anything I want with it.

You should not have the freedom to restrict the freedoms of others.

> The same cannot be said of GPL software.

The GPL protects the freedoms of ALL users. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Actually, you're not entirely right either. The GPL is about protecting the code. The entire GNU philosophy is that code itself should be free. Thus to protect its freedom, the GPL places certain restrictions on its used in non-Free products.

If it was about the rights of the users of the code, it would be more like the BSD license: give credit, and do what you please with it.

It's all subtle differences, but they're still there. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? > They are using different code and architectures.

I thought that too until I stumble with a "Incorrect DOS function" ~1.5 years ago when I was copying contents from a CD.
Maybe it has a different architecture, but it has a lot of legacy code too.

I think of Win3.x (and bellow) as a different of Win9x/ME series in terms of archtecture. Win3.x --> Win9x/ME -> WinNT/2K/2K3 are, for many reasons, steps in the Windows foundation.

Win3.x was just a shell over DOS (16bits) . Win9x /ME were mixed 16/32bits. Windows NT/2K/2K3 are indeed 32 (64 for Win2K3 64) bits architecture.

If you ask me I tell you that Windows has 20 years.
But then you could argue that Linux has 30+ years on it's foundations...

As for "Is Free Software Always a Good Thing?".
No, of course not. Both commercial and free (as in beer, as in chocolate, whatever) are needed.
There are truly amazing software/tecnologies in both sides of the fence.
For example, IMHO:

FS Commercial
Apache
Mozilla
Eclipse,NetBeans Websphere Studio
PostScript PDF
OpenGL and derivatives (this fits both)
Photoshop
Rational Rose
BSD, Linux Solaris, OS X
yacc (bison), lex (flex)
LaTeX
MySQL,PosgreSQL Oracle DB*,DB2
Java (J2SE, J2EE, J2ME)
Quake, Unreal
X11

and much other that I can't remember now.
* Don't ask me about their other products... Thu, 22 May 2003 01:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Dual license ONLY works if you wrote every single line of the source code. If you start your project from other people's GPL source code, then you CAN'T dual license.

>>>There are definitely times and places where you want code to be freely available. Think of a publically funded medical expert system, for instance. Free software is appropriate for those projects that have benefit to the community and need safety measures against commercial hijacking. Or all the tools you need to build and maintain such a system. It makes sense to have those tools available to the people who funded their creation so no community, society, or country is unable to access better medical care.

It's YOUR tax dollar. Would you be willing to fund a public program that other countries can steal for free ---- and because of that ---- people in other countries (where no public funds were spent) paid lower taxes than you.

Safety has nothing to do with open/close source code. Both are just as buggy (Microsoft ISN'T the whole close source industry). It's actually much costlier if you have to certify both your x-ray machine software application and also the open source OS. It already takes years to get safety certifications when QNX/VxWorks/Lynx certified their OS so you only have to certify your app.

>>>>Microsoft is funded by years of illegal monopoly money, so there is no comparing what Microsoft can do vs. what the Linux community can do. I will say it again, if you gave Linux billions of dollars in funding and four years (for just one major revision) of a zero market pressure environment, I'm sure you could turn out an amazing OS that would make Windows 2003 look shabby by comparison.

Linux is funded by IBM (who had a anti-trust consent decree with the US government). Just because Microsoft is the only one convicted --- doesn't mean that everybody else (who cuts a deal with the government and avoided a conviction) are less guilty.

>>>Take the example of QNX which is privately funded small company that makes a well-regarded OS product. You will find many versions of their OS had problems with the mouse pointer too. By the way, this was well before any cheap/free versions of their OS. There are many many examples of commercial products which are very poor quality.

That's a bad example. For one, many QNX systems doesn't even have a desktop. Secondly, you don't change mouses or video cards once you deploy a qnx-based nuclear power station. This has NOTHING to do with quality, it has EVERYTHING to do with QNX customers (your average nuclear power station owner) not willing to pay extra money for a better mouse driver. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think the original poster has something of a point. Microsoft has a huge head start in this arena. WinNT was started in October 1996, and coding didn't really get under way until well into 1997. So NT has a six year head start. KDE has hundreds of developers. Microsoft has thousands. The KDE architecture had to be designed from scratch, while the Win32 API was an evolution of the pre-existing Win16 API. In that time, the KDE folks have been able to come up with a product that, on a technological level, is competitive with NT, and even has an edge in many cases. That is an incredible achievement, and speaks volumes about the development model. The KDE folks have at least two years until Longhorn comes out. To put that into perspective, that is how long it took them to do a rewrite for the 1.0 -> 2.0 transition. Who wants to be they can clean up any usability issues in that time frame?

PS> I think the KDE development model in particular has a few important advantages: first, architectural issues are handled by a core few people, not really random developers. Just take a look at the API. It's very clean and integrated, hardly what you'd expect from an anarchic development model. Second, it has a much stronger community than closed source development. Just take a look at KDE programs in general. The strong community encourages developers to do everything "the KDE way." As a result, the level of integration between KDE applications far exceeds that in any other desktop. I don't know if this strength will hold as the KDE developer community gets larger, but it's a nice change from the MS world, where even Office and Internet Explorer use different toolkits. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "It is just that there aren't many companies making their software available to purchase on linux."

-MS holds over 90% of the market, Linux just about 1%. It's just not worthwhile for most companies to invest into the Linux market.
Unless Linux doesn't gain more market shares it won't change; unfortunatly. Thu, 22 May 2003 01:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It's about freedom and protecting code.
It's about freedom since you give the same rights over the code to your customers/end users.
It's about protecting your code since it won't allow anyone to "steal it" (read claiming that is it exclusively his/hers own).
It's about cooperation since if someone finds another use for your code (s)he has the moral and legal duty to make the changes availlable to you.

It's, definitely, NOT about making money with your code. Thu, 22 May 2003 02:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >> You can bitch at Win9x and Win3.x if you want,


Actually, I wansn't bitching at all, just pointing out even Microsoft needed time to roll out a good product.

>> but don't put all Windows in the same bag just because >> >> they share the same name. They are using different code and architectures.

Everybody knows that, Eugenia, thank you very much. So what are you saying anyway? That ms developed the other windows from 1982 to Windows Me -18 years - and still didn't make a good product out of it? What does that tell you?

You know what though? No matter how much you spin it, the NT line is still, in a very important sense, a continuation of MS's windows efforts. They leveraged their past windows efforts, and experience, and EVEN code, to build the NT line. So stop pretending like the NT line was a micracle coming completely out of the blue.

And btw, as far as servers go, Win2k was still NOT an exceptional product. It was only good to the extent that it was more stable than previous ms products - in order words, it was good by ms standards. As long as I am not compelled to run sql server or iis, I would, if I was making a technical decision, still choose BSD or linux over win2k. Thu, 22 May 2003 02:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Good article, Adam.

Lee Nooks. Thu, 22 May 2003 02:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Why people were/are angry at Redhat is because they changed a lot more than the theme and a few defaults.

check out more here: http://mosfet.org/noredhat.html (Yes, he missed a lot of hamrful changes to KDE, but is hould give you an overview.)

Also, i do agree that OSS neds to become more interoperable and integrated, it just needs more coordanation and team work for a common cause like taking more than 1% of the desktop markey and increasing the server market even more. Instead of havinga billion tiny applications that are intended to do the same thing but have a few differences, jsut make only 2-3 reallly gooooood ones. Competition is good, but waht drives the market the most at improvement is 2-3 companies making the same product, when it gets toof ragmented everything starts going downhill and it becomes a ngihtmare for th user too. (UNIX) Thu, 22 May 2003 02:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think when Stallman stated that the freedom to choose any license was not the sort of freedom he advocated was when he lost the last of his cred for me. The simple fact is that the marketplace has been around since the first humans began trading in earnest, and, with good regulation, it works. Don't underestimate the willingness of people to pay money for something that will be valuable to them. Hence people pay for QT licenses etc.. I agree that in many cases software costs were way out of reality, but we are seeing the software market become saner and stabler and the hype die down now.

I love free software, in the license sense, and I think it has already achieved it's goal. There is no stopping the momentum it has already built. To rail against the freedom of individuals or companies in this day, when there are in fact often open source alternatives to most proprietary solutions, to choose any license is silly and wrong.

There is a even a growing symbiotic relationship between commercial companies and open source projects these days. Thu, 22 May 2003 02:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The bottom line is that not every itch that businesses and consumers desire is going to met by an itch that developers want to scratch. At the same time, the open source development model can't be expected to be expected to fulfill every niche in the market. In other words, giving away your source, in an already small market for some software might be akin to giving away the whole market.

I think open source can be very good at providing a computing infrastructure(ie an os, database, networking technogies, etc) but often stops short of giving a polished "simplified" package to the user.

It is a shame that more closed source consumer software companies(ie. Intuit, Macromedia, Adobe, etc.) have not commited to devloping software on linux. Thu, 22 May 2003 02:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >check out more here: http://mosfet.org/noredhat.html

Oh, please. "Harmful" to KDE. Right...
I have KDE on my RH 9 and it works perfectly and QT apps compile perfectly too. I have absolutely no problems with KDE under RH, and I don't believe all this propaganda against RH Mosfet and his friends are brewing. Thu, 22 May 2003 02:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Ian Pulsford wrote:
I think when Stallman stated that the freedom to choose any license was not the sort of freedom he advocated was when he lost the last of his cred for me.

Do you have a reference for that quote? Doesn't sound like the typical razor sharp writing/speaking about free software I've heard from him. Besides, I'll bet he doesn't support the freedom to rob banks either.

For those who haven't read the GPL,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

There's more about what "free software" means
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
as well as a great faq
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
and lots of other good reading.

Of course, when you're done, don't forget to take the quiz:
http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi
:) Thu, 22 May 2003 03:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Not necesserilly in price, but the user should still have freedom to modify the product for his or her needs.

Why? If I spend 6 months working on a program (that included nobody else's licensed code) and decide to release it under whatever license I see fit, you as an end user don't have the freedom to do shit with my code unless I say you do.

just like if I buy a couch or whatever, i can do absolutely wahtever I want to it/with it, same should go for software.

Of course, software is not the same thing as a physical object such as a couch, which many people will attest to when they want to justify piracy. Just look at it this way - if you could make 1,000 copies of that couch in about a half a minute and then give those copies to all of your friends, do you think it would be legal to do so? Just because it can be done with software doesn't mean that it should be done with software. (And not saying it shouldn't either, but that's not for the end user to decide.)

If someone wants to write an app and hand it out for free along with the source code, that's fine if they choose to do so - a lot of great programs fall under this category. But what these 'free software or death' people need to do is to stop expecting something for free that they did not have a hand in creating. If a piece of software has a license that's too restrictive for your needs, don't use/buy it. Either build it yourself or use something else. And if there's nothing else, well .... that's just too damn bad, isn't it? If you're not willing to do the work involved in building what you want on your own, then why do you expect somebody else who wishes to keep their code under wraps to just hand you the source code and have at it? Thu, 22 May 2003 03:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Flaws.

"Linux users don't pay for software."
Because right now they're more sophisticated. Unsophisticated users need to buy software -- users that right now use Windows. If they used Linux, they'd be buying software because they can't build it. They'd even have more money for it.

"community backlash can best be described as merciless."
Don't customers ever backlash? Don't employees ever fight management? Isn't Redhat dependent on that very community to make its business model feasible -- low startup costs because they don't employ most of their developers? Who is doing whom a favor here?

The thesis -- free software doesn't pay salaries.
Absent proprietary software, wouldn't customers still pay money for programmers to fulfill their needs? Adam Scheinberg is assuming many things about a completely different software universe that has never yet existed. The financial rules won't be the same, and he needs to think about them. Thu, 22 May 2003 03:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>The thesis -- free software doesn't pay salaries. Thu, 22 May 2003 04:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>If you really wanted to be a nice person, you would release code without expecting ANYTHING in return. This would be FREE software. I would have the freedome to do anything I want with it. Thu, 22 May 2003 04:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I just wanted to get this said once and for all ... comparing Microsoft to Linux in order to compare the quality or usefullness of open source vs. commercial products is not the best and most direct comparison you can make.

The more direct comparisons to be made would either be between Unix and Linux, because they attempt to support the same theory (alhtough linux was originally meant to be a personal desktop OS, and no other unix was - so just like all analogies or comparisons it breaks down at some level).

Another valid comparison would be between Linux and BeOS, because both we're created at aproximately the same time, and both we're meant to be new personal OSes.

Don't get me wrong, there are dozens of usefull connections and comparisons to make, between all manner of licenses, development models, OSes, langauges, etc ... and definately the Windows vs. Linux issue has a place ... but it is constantly talked about primarily for one reason only - popularity. Windows is the most used and popular OS, and Microsoft the largest company. Linux is the most used and popular open source operating system, and Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman are the most recognized personalities (and I find people who connect them too much even more clueless than people who can only compare linux to windows). Thu, 22 May 2003 04:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I frequently find myself perplexed by the Linux community. I love the software and I enjoy using the alternative environment for it's benefits and my genuine interest in the technology. However, I never have been able to fully understand the zealous of "open-source." As a college student preparing for a career in programming, I do not see GPL as anything close to a viable career choice. I like free software, and I like community-driven free software, however, I think they are and will remain hobbies. I enjoy programming, that's why I want it as a CAREER not a hobby. About the only useful benefit of opensource over freeware closed-source to me personally is the compiling optimizations of Gentoo Thu, 22 May 2003 04:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Didn't they debunk the whole "Free software isn't free!" meme? Are free countries less free when they outlaw murder?

Do we need these wordgames to keep us from important things? Thu, 22 May 2003 04:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yes, I've read most of Stallman's rhetoric.

Here's what I was referring to:

'However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom.'

from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html Thu, 22 May 2003 04:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? There has been one (a proprietary one, not the GPL one) for Linux and Moz/NS compatible browsers since forever. Works fine for me.

I am afraid you are thinking of Flash. Shockwave is as of yet unsupported. Believe me, I wish it were, my little bro loves the Nick Jr. website but can't use it on my computer due to most of the games being shockwave as opposed to flash.

Do you realize what a support nightmare it would be? Codeweavers works with it. Regular Wine, however, is (no offense to the developers)a hack designed for users.

I am not saying it should be officially supported. But they could throw the wine guys a bone with some hints to making it work and a little effort. Also Codeweavers is based on wine with some proprietary stuff thrown in. It isn't that much of a stretch that certain things that work in codeweavers could be made to work on wine if some companies who owned the ip would give a hand. Thu, 22 May 2003 05:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The opposite assumption is -- free software save salaries.
Thus, the new thesis -- non free software waste salaries.

How do you figure this?
Let's say I want to write a program that would be the Mac software equivalent to Wine - to be able to run OSX apps under Linux and/or Windows without the need for OSX itself, and have it as close to 100% compatibability as possible. (I'm not sure if anyone would really want to do that, but just go along with it for the sake of discussion ...)
Now, I don't really care about money and would love to make this free software, but I have a problem ... this is not the kind of project you can sit down and write in your spare time and expect to be done in less than 10 years .. especially if you have a wife and kids The most you can hope for is that you would release some code and maybe enough developers would jump on board to help so that you would be done in the next millenium. But considering how long it has taken Wine to get this far, I don't really think I want to go that route.

So, at the very least, I need to do this full time, and probably have a lot of other paid developers helping me, and create a small company. However, to be able to do this, I need money. So I go out and find a couple of investors and hire the developers that I need. Two years later, the project is done (v1.0) and ready for release. Now, I can release this program under the GPL and let the community make bug fixes and/or upgrades for me and be able to do with it what they wish (free software), but I've got a problem ... in developing this software, I've got a lot of debts to pay off. So, how the hell am I supposed to do that by releasing/selling the software under a license that allows people to do whatever they want with the code and give it away for free? And moreover, why do you think that end users should have the right to do this after my company has spent so much time and money developing this thing? Now, I am probably missing something, but I don't see how the hell this is supposed to work when people need/want to make money? Thu, 22 May 2003 05:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? ..so I have less to bitch about

Interesting article, and it brings up some good points -- but it also gets a few wrong.

1) We're still missing even passable counterparts for Photoshop

Wrong! GIMP. It is most definitely more than "passable", by anyone's definition. (Whether it's as good or better than Photoshop is another matter entirely)

2) Linux users don't pay for software.

Other postings have refuted this point well enough. I'd be interested in seeing supporting documentation for this statement, btw.

3) And when we implement it, there's no support.

Um... have you ever called MS tech support? Q.E.D. Thu, 22 May 2003 05:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? MS holds over 90% of the market, Linux just about 1%. It's just not worthwhile for most companies to invest into the Linux market.

You ignore many important facts in this comment.

1) Porting from OSX to linux is generally considered a non-ordeal. I don't know how true this is, but I'll have to go by what people say.

2) Porting between linux and all traditional unices is also simple as long as traditional api calls are used.

3) Linux is an emerging market. There is a saying in the world of business: "The bigger the risk, the bigger the payoff." Linux may be a big risk (I don't believe it is, I think it is an obvious winner), but even if it is a big risk it has a chance of a big payoff. I think it is a small risk with a big payoff. The only reason the risk is considered big is because most people don't see how obvious it's success is. Thu, 22 May 2003 05:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Q.E.D.? Jeez, GoodGrief, could you get any more arrogant?

The GIMP is wonderful. But a Photoshop counterpart it ain't. Ask a real graphic designer, they'll tell you. People who say the GIMP is a professional design tool are generally the ones who only use it to convert those pesky png files into the "more manageable" .bmp format.

As for the paying for software thing - public companies exist to make their stockholders happy and make money. If they thought they could sell, say, Photoshop or AfterEffects or Flash on Linux, they'd do it. They obviously don't.

3) And when we implement it, there's no support.
Um... have you ever called MS tech support?

Yes, have you? They're not God, but they stand by their product and they've sent people out to help us firefight real problems. Anyway, Microsoft isn't the only company that markets their support. Ever called Novell for support? That's worth every penny.
Support, too often, for better or worse, is about blame. Microsoft is willing to stand by their products, even when the shit hits the fan. Open source developers, for better or for worse, usually disclaim themselves from any responsibility in the README file.

Don't cast me as anti-open source, just don't try to sell me with weak, baseless (and incredibly pompous) arguments. Thu, 22 May 2003 05:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Porting from OSX to linux is generally considered a non-ordeal... Porting between linux and all traditional unices
is also simple as long as traditional api calls are used."

> I can't judge nor argue it.

"Linux is an emerging market. There is a saying in the world of business: "The bigger the risk, the bigger the payoff." Linux may be a big risk (I don't believe it is, I think it is an obvious winner), but even if it is a big risk it has a chance of a big payoff. I think it is a small risk with a big payoff. The only reason the risk is considered big is because most people don't see how obvious it's success is."

> Let's hope that this is enough of an incentive for developers to invest in Linux. But at the Moment most companies are reluctant to do so. Thu, 22 May 2003 05:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Open source developers, for better or for worse, usually disclaim themselves from any responsibility in the README file."
MSFT always disclaims itself from any responsibility in the EULA.

"Microsoft is willing to stand by their products, even when the shit hits the fan."
Redhat employs Alan Cox so he can debug hard problems for their support clients.

"If they thought they could sell, say, Photoshop or AfterEffects or Flash on Linux, they'd do it."
QNX is profitable. Does Adobe sell Photoshop for it? No. Now, if Windows and MacOS were gone, and the only serious desktop were Gnu/Linux, would Adobe sell Photoshop for it? Yes.

btw, the post you're responding to said that Gimp is merely "passable." In no way did he say it was a professional tool. Thu, 22 May 2003 05:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? There are certain reasons why software companies need to make decent amounts of money, and why a GNU world is dangerous. For example, Microsoft keeps hardware manufacturers in check, which probably is a very good thing. And the Microsoft tax is very low.

However, I don't think this article captures these points. Thu, 22 May 2003 06:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? btw, the post you're responding to said that Gimp is merely "passable." In no way did he say it was a professional tool.

He said (indirectly) that Gimp was a passable alternative for Photoshop and since Photoshop is a professional tool, what does that lead you to conclude ? Thu, 22 May 2003 06:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >Porting from OSX to linux is generally considered a non-ordeal.

Only if you are talking about POSIX command line applications. If you are talking about GUI apps, it is almost impossible to port anything from OSX (just very dificult), as most apps are based on Carbon and Linux has nothing like it, while Cocoa is very poorly supported by Gnustep (plus most people don't have gnustep on their linuxes, therefore devs don't prefer it). And even for the first team, the command line apps, usually is the other way around: people are porting from linux and unix to OSX, not the other way around, in general. Thu, 22 May 2003 06:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >Porting from OSX to linux is generally considered a non-ordeal.
Eugenia, above claim was from dwilson. Anyway, thanks for your explanation. All I was saying is that S/W developers couldn't justify the costs of porting win aps to linux because there is hardly any demand for it in the corporate world. Thu, 22 May 2003 06:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Well, Good Grief wrote:
It is most definitely more than "passable", by anyone's definition. (Whether it's as good or better than Photoshop is another matter entirely)

While he wrote it's more than passable (my errer, I've been up too long), it seems he's casting doubt on it being up to Photoshop's standards.

Anyway, it's too late for me to care about trying to delve into the meaning of a someone's post, and I'll drop that point. I misread it too. Thu, 22 May 2003 06:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I only use Linux and have no interest at all using Microsoft products under any circumstances. This is something that will never change. I definately paid for my Redhat distribution and I would be willing to pay for other Linux services.

It's important to me that the source code is publically available because that means that changes to the platform have to be responsible to the public. I also have control over my applications because the vendor research and development is not locked up, instead I can control the libraries because I have the freedom to migrate or implement new behavior. I think that over time, open source development will become more generic, and provide powerful reuse and popular simplification so that source code accessibility can be leveraged by all Linux users.

Information technology is so easy to abuse. It's very easy for a vendor to slip handcuffs onto you without you realizing it until you are fully locked in. These issues require extensive background information, and they are not understood by the public. Information technology is a glutton for abuse, and open source is the way to educate the public and provide them with control, power, and best of all, freedom. Thu, 22 May 2003 07:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? In the free software world, people don't pay for software. People pay for service, people donate to their favorite projects. Its a revolution and most people are still under shock. But I can assure you in a few years, most non specialist software will be free (as in beer), but you'd be able to pay and get your money's worth of good support for it. Also, custom software would become the order of the day, and that is what people would pay for --- to get software customized for their needs. Thu, 22 May 2003 08:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The sad fact is that a group of 5 or 6 high school students who probably wear their grandmothers panties over their heads can go into their attics and write software that kicks ass on any Microsoft product. Doesn't that tell you that Microsoft is just a little bit inefficient? I mean I wonder what really goes on there, probably a zoo of people pretending to be working hard. Thu, 22 May 2003 08:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It's not just in open-source projects that you have to wade through endless beta releases before a decent release. The quality of programs like Windows and Photoshop has been gradually improved over decades. I doubt anyone would say that Win95 was a quality product.

At least with free software you don't have to pay to get the beta releases. Thu, 22 May 2003 08:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Darius,

your posts about hypothetical projects, and problems of people modifying your code and such make me want to hug you. Good to know there are some logical and sane people out there.

soup,

"In the free software world, people don't pay for software. People pay for service, people donate to their favorite projects. Its a revolution and most people are still under shock. But I can assure you in a few years, most non specialist software will be free (as in beer), but you'd be able to pay and get your money's worth of good support for it. Also, custom software would become the order of the day, and that is what people would pay for --- to get software customized for their needs."

You completely don't get it. Thats not the way things are going to go. Any business model like your will tank. Service as a addon to your revinue from sales is nice, but you can't live off it. If your product is truely good, you will have no service business, since people arn't needed to call tech support when something is good, or rather not nearly enough to make any money. Also, a few random people kicking 5-20 bucks to a company for writing something is not going to support them. Face it, what keaps software companies in business is selling software. When they give something out for free, they are doing it for a reason. Adobe gives away acrobat reader so they can sell people the software to make Pdf's, otherwise PDF's would have never taken off. You can think happy thoughts all you want about your world, but it isn't going to happen. The world runs on money. Companies live on selling goods. Service businesses only work when the whole basis is service. But if a company has to create product, service will not cut it.

Also custom software is the main way of things. I belive it's something like 90% or software written is custom apps for people, not off the shelf stuff. And you can be damn sure software that falls into this catagory is not free. Asking someone to write you and app and telling them you want it for free, but they can charge you whenever you have a question is going to get a door slammed in your face. If they did go for it you can pretty much garrentee one crappy confusing program. Thu, 22 May 2003 08:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Someone comes out with this unmitigated guff every month or so, and they're always wrong.

First, separate the issues. The development model is entirely irrelevant. Open source doesn't mean you have to *accept* patches or let anyone else play with your baby. A company can release its code as open source yet develop it exactly as they would a closed source product. Imagine if id software open sourced their engine as they wrote (they wouldn't of course, but bear with me). How would that affect its development? Not at all. Someone might take the code and make a fork, but the id product would be the same at the end.

Second, the point is flawed. It's not the open source model that makes desktop Linux a slightly less polished (although still immeasurably better - tried using a command prompt yet?) product than desktop Windows, it's simple immaturity and comparative lack of resources. Try using GNOME apps (NOT GTK) and ONLY GNOME apps for a day, or KDE apps (NOT QT) and only KDE apps for a day. Very close to the same level of uniformity and integration, and they'll both be at or past the level of Windows in two or three major versions' time. The CHOICE you get is just that: you can CHOOSE to use apps that aren't integrated with the DE of your choice, and most people do. What does this mean? Well, it means that to most Linux users, functionality is more important than consistent looks or "integration". But if you want those two, you can have them. Thu, 22 May 2003 08:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree there are benefits brought by a company developing software, namely money and centralised development. However this doesn't mean the software has to close-source, proprietry or not free from cost. Many companies do fine selling support or normally GPL'd products without the GPL.

In the long run nobody benefits from proprietry methods. Also in the long run Linux and other such open and non-commerial operating systems will be mature and overall perfectly adequete operating systems. At that point the impact of companies will be less important. Thu, 22 May 2003 09:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Also custom software is the main way of things. I belive it's something like 90% or software written is custom apps for people, not off the shelf stuff. And you can be damn sure software that falls into this catagory is not free. Asking someone to write you and app and telling them you want it for free, but they can charge you whenever you have a question is going to get a door slammed in your face. If they did go for it you can pretty much garrentee one crappy confusing program."

Actually, since the GPL only makes you distribute your changes when you re-distribute, you're free to use whatever GPL code you want in your in-house project. Go nuts! You're not going to be redistributing it, so who cares? Thu, 22 May 2003 09:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? it sounds like it's targeting zealots@osnews.com.

those guys really trolled you in the worst way if you wrote an entire article just to address them.

cause i know that article wasn't written for me or most of the technical people i interact with.

makes for some really lame reading.

basically the fight with the zealots has left the bars and has broken out into the streets.

albeit wrapped up in a nicely worded official article.

why not just rename the article: "ATTENTION LINUX ZEALOTS, BUY YOUR FSCKING SOFTWARE, THAT WILL FIX EVERYTHING CAUSE IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT"

sigh. Thu, 22 May 2003 09:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Call me picky, but there is no such web browser as 'Firebird' or 'Mozilla Firebird'. There is a 'Mozilla Firebird Project' that aims to produce the 'Mozilla Web Browser', but (and if you look on their page), it is clarrified, they do *not* publicly call their browser 'Firebird'. 'Firebird' is a relational Database based on the opensource Interbase 6.0 code. I honestly with Mozilla had had a little more sense when stepping on other people's IPR, but they didn;t. Could you please alter the article so that we all don't carry on the myth that is Firebird. Thu, 22 May 2003 09:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Perhaps the problem of Free Software desktop stuff being a lot of inconsistant jumbled crap has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of software being Free (as in speech or beer) and absolutely everything to do with the fact that the Free Software community (and for that matter, Open Source) is largely populated by traditionalist Unix geeks who have long had hostile or indifferent attitudes towards such things as GUI's, usability, and non-geeky people getting things done easily. Why do we keep expecting people who spend all of their time in a terminal and who goose step to the book-on-tape version of Neal Stevenson's "In the beginning there was command line" to produce usable software? Why do we keep expecting a next several years worth of quality after 30 years of nonsense?

How could we make Linux software more consistant? We could have folks just use one toolkit/desktop environment, and they could (horror of horrors) design the UI before they start writing the code (which is what any usability guy worth their salt would tell you to do to have a truly consistant, integrated experience). What would be the response of any Free Software (aka unix geek) to these suggestions? Utter disgust and denial. You'd get responses like "quit trying to enforce your proprietary software views on us" or "one toolkit? it's a matter of choice" or "that's what you want. That's not what I want" or "you obviously don't understand the open source method". Yes, I've been personally told all those things a number of times by a number of different Free Software developers.


Apache and the Linux kernel have succeeded independantly of commercial involvement, so if such polished technical projects that require a massive amount of resources and coordination succeed, we have to start asking the question "Does Free Software not produce usable, highly polished desktop projects that require lots of resources and coordination due to a lack of money, or is it because the Free Software developers really don't consider that area to be very important?" Furthermore, it begs the question as to whether bringing in commercial companies is truly the panacea for the many ills of desktop linux, since the real problem has nothing to do with money and everything to do with lack of developer interest in solving the problem.

In my opinion (which is just my opinion, any may not be valid in all 50 states and is subject to recall at any time), if the you have to bring in commercial companies to save your ass from the apathy of your own developers, you never really had an ass worth saving.


That being said, I'm all for the success of Free Software; once the harmful unix culture has been exorcised from Free Software, things will get better. Thu, 22 May 2003 09:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Linux users don't want to pay for anything"

This statement is so wrong... There was _never_ any statistical proof for this, this rumor just came up because it made sense back then but that doesn't make it true. In fact, every informed statement about this seems to imply the opposite, that Linux users pay just as much for worthy software than anyone else (of course there are many Linux users not willing to pay for anything, but so are many Windows users who pirate 99% of their software!).
But that doesn't mean that I will pay for software if I don't think it's worthy. This includes most proprietary software because it usually lacks integration, gets lost for me when I switch architectures (because it lacks portability) or even stops getting developed all together (BeOS comes to mind or this expensive text editor I buyed for Windows which still suffers from very annoying bugs which were never fixed up 'til now).

Please spare me all this "proprietary software is good for you, you should spend money on it, even if it sucks", I just can't hear it anymore. I'll pay for whatever I feel is worth paying for and whatever I can effort. When I don't really need proprietory software enough to pay for it, it's probably just not good enough, won't you agree?
Confusing free software with uncommercial software won't impress me neither, I thought we would be over this by now.

To sum it up, this article is basically just a summary of FUD and redundancies which are constantly spread against free software. Again, no real substance there. Maybe you'll call me an idiot now for not acknowledging your wisdom, but I'm growing tired of it. Thu, 22 May 2003 09:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? There are times that I need to use use Microsoft products. For example, while I dislike it tremendously, Word is the lingua franca of word processing. I know I can send the vast majority of my business contacts a Word document. They likewise expect that I can open/view/manipulate Word docs, as well. Is this bad? I dunno... Is it reality? Definitely.

There are however times when it absolutely a no brainer for me to use Linux and other OSS software. I find it personally offensive that I have to buy licenses for *BOTH* my file/print services (once for the server and then CALs - and those add up quickly!). Samba not only gives me finer grain control, but I don't have to worry about hidden costs or reliability. It just works!(tm)

I find it unfortunate that people will try judge Linux based on what is (or is not) available? I remember when Adobe made a beta of Framemaker available to the Linux community. It was a flop. So what? I do remember people saying things like "Adobe's giving up on Linux." So what? If you can afford Framemaker's cost (big $$$) and need its power, then neither Linux nor Windows is really a good choice. You need dedicated horsepower. And that's been Adobe's thrust with it all along. Believe me, it eats resources like candy.

Not withstanding the MS propaganda, sever commercial entities have swung support over to Linux. SAP has recorded some of their best performance numbers on x86 Linux. (They have a really nice Open Source DB, btw. Check it out at http://www.sapdb.org good stuff even if nobody knows about it.)

I really do think everyone worries/evangilizes/complains about the Linux/Windows GUI too much. I started with a CLI. I will probably always stay with the CLI. My preference. Have a sseen mouse slowdowns with X? Definitely. Have I seen the same slowdowns in Windows? Yes from good Windows 286 (boy that dates me) all the way through XP. What is remarkable is that everyone seems to be able to criticize the other guy's OS while ignoring or downplaing their own OS's weak point(s).

I have and will always for things that work. I have no real ethical paying for Microsoft products when they meet a need for me. I likewise have paid for all my Linux distros and have donated money to support certain OSS projects. I refuse to support crap, either monetarily or in actual use. BTW, as far as Linux and MS support goes I have had successes and failures with both. This is why I will never use Exchange (paying $299 to discover my problem is a known "issue") nor sendmail (I like human readable configuration files, thank you very much).

One final thought, a friend gave me an interesting perspective on the whole MS vs. Everything Else debate. Microsoft would still be an also ran if the original TCP/Ip code wasn't BSD licensed. IE wouldn't exist if Mosaic had not been developed. Likewise, Apache devlopment has been spurned on by IIS. MySQL (or Postgres) would still be minor or research RDBMs if there weren't people looking for cheaper, (and in a lot cases) more reliable alternatives to SQL Server or Access. (One interesting tidbit here, I have come across many customer who were told by so-called MS experts that their websites were SQL Server driven only for me to discover an Access MDB as their backend. Ahh the power of perception).

In short, for me it's the right tool for the right job. Sometimes it's Linux. Sometimes it's Windows. And even sometimes it's something else.

-d. Thu, 22 May 2003 09:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Ever heard of people who lived under Dictators say : "yes it was terrible, but at least the trains ran on time" That's what this is like.
At its best democracy is a lot better, at its worst it's also a lot worse. So what do you want : open code with all the mess that comes with it, or order with the occasional dissappearance (of competitors)? Thu, 22 May 2003 10:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "It's YOUR tax dollar. Would you be willing to fund a public program that other countries can steal for free ---- and because of that ---- people in other countries (where no public funds were spent) paid lower taxes than you."

This is called Aid for Developing Countries. In the case of free software, it has the enormous advantage of not costing the programming country anything.

If some people in the developed countries want the GIMP, their tax dollars pay for it, and they get to use it. If somebody in Africa wants to use it too, it doesn't cost any more money. Your benefit is theirs too. There is no additional development cost.

Compare that with shipping out free water treatment equipment. Here there is a real cost to the taxpayers in the donor country.

So I think the concept of "stealing for free" (isn't stealing usually free?) is inappropriate here. Thu, 22 May 2003 10:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? A lot of this article is simply not factually correct.

1) It's not "just" companies like Xandros who hire graphics designers, virtually all distro companies do. Garret LeSage works full time at Red Hat drawing bluecurve.

2) Latency in the GUI is nothing to do with threading in XFree, I have no idea where this idea came from whatsoever. It's affected by many things, multithreaded servers are not one of them.

3) WTF is this "Linux users don't pay for software"? CodeWeavers don't seem to agree.... neither do SuSE, neither do PomPom etc etc.

4) The central argument of "not everything should be free" is not argued, there isn't even an attempt at arguing it. Snipes at the process or some developers have nothing to do with the question of whether software should be free or not.

I mean for the lords sake, I thought OSNews was finished with ridiculous stereotyping of open source and its developers, then an article like this one comes along. Thu, 22 May 2003 10:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The author of this story confuses methodological issues of software development (open source) with licensing issues (GPL). Other than this, the article is riddled with assumptions about Linux users, what they do, what they think and how they behave.

There used to be a day when journalists or aspiring journalists had to provide evidence in the form of a rigorous study to back up their assumptions. This site is the worst example of unexamined assumptions being published without any form of editorial rigor. You have a responsibility to your readers, and you are not fulfilling it.


All these preposterous claims about Linux will be put to rest in the next 3 years. Most of them already have. Governments and citizens around the world are waking up to the fact that they like ownership of their data, meaning that it has to be encoded in an open and documented file format.

To those that read this post, ask yourself whether you find it in you to support the cumulative creation of knowledge, which is what the GPL allows in the software world, or whether you prefer to have this knowledge withheld from you. Thu, 22 May 2003 10:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The point of the article seems to be that Microsoft, with uncounted billiions of dollars and twenty-some years of prior versions of everything, can deliver a polished, well-integrated product, and that the free software competition is not as mature. That does not sound very newsworthy to me.

I would not dispute that the current Microsoft products do the job they are intended to do. Basically, I do not have a problem with Microsoft engineering, I have a problem with Microsoft's business practices. Microsoft seems to believe that they have an indelible right to be paid by all users of desktop OS and office productivity software for all of eternity, and they will do absolutely everything (legal or illegal) to maintain that monopoly. Thu, 22 May 2003 11:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This probably wont get read because it's the 73rd post, but anyway, you said:
"You have misconceptions here regarding the development of the Windows NT-branch which only started in 1991. And in 1999 they already had a great product out, Windows 2000. The desktop version of it, XP, came 2 years later out. Win2k3 Server is even better. "

I believe they started work on the NT kernel in 1988, and this work was mostly performed by people at DEC.

In NT4, the GUI unsurprisingly starts looking like windows 95. Umm, do you think they rewrote the GUI from scratch for NT 4? No they reused code from the win95 project.

When windows 2000 first came out, it was still buggy and had problems and it took a couple of service packs to become really good. So I am suggesting it took Microsoft 12 years to create a decent operating system.

Since Microsoft started NT in 1988, that gives them a 3 year head start on Linux (the kernel at least). Linux was also a very small hobby project in its early days (though NT development only started with 8 people I believe, 7 from DEC, 1 from Microsoft).

Also, only in the last 2-3 years has Linux started to become really hyped and more mainstream. This means in terms of catering for the non-technical user, it is still in its infancy. I believe with continued feedback from non-technical users, outstanding issues with the Linux user experience will be resolved. Thu, 22 May 2003 11:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If that were true, then why did I spend $50 on the crossover plugin support extension and Win4Lin v5 this month? Thu, 22 May 2003 11:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1) I bet a lot of people bitching about Linux on the desktop don't actually use Linux on the desktop. I've used every version of Windows since 3.1, and now I use a 100% KDE desktop. At its worst, KDE is merely unpolished, and its its best, it displays a level of integration that Windows cannot touch. GNOME 2.x, on the other hand, is much more polished (moreso than Windows in many cases --- its more streamlined anyway) while it doesn't have the advantage of tight integration. Neither are UI disasters, unless the ways of Windows XP are strongly ingrained in you.

2) I really think Adobe is missing the boat with Photoshop. Linux has shown a good deal of acceptance in the high-end media community. There are Linux versions of XSI, Maya, Toonz, and many other high-end media applications. Many desktops at ILM only run OS X because of Photoshop --- they would have been switched to Linux otherwise. New versions of some Photoshop software is based on Qt, which might prove to indicate a forthcoming Photoshop Linux port. Thu, 22 May 2003 11:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Eugenia,

Well ask people who actually work in KDE development, they can tell you different stories.

When a friend of mine was building KBear for RHL 8.0 he had tremendous problems. All sorts of hackery had to go into the .spec file.

Additionally, several KDE internals were changed, at least in RHL 8.0, that made work difficult.

I too thought that it was just cosmetic changes until he pointed out to me that the changed Red Hat Software made go deeper than just the UI. Thu, 22 May 2003 12:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @ Owen Anderson:

> Actually, you're not entirely right either. The GPL is
> about protecting the code. The entire GNU philosophy is
> that code itself should be free.

No. Access to source code is but a means to an end. The end is the freedoms of users. Code does not exist in a vacuum (figuratively that is). Free code is meaningless without some entity to take advantage of it.

> If it was about the rights of the users of the code, it
> would be more like the BSD license: give credit, and do
> what you please with it.

There is more than one BSD license. None of them protects the freedoms of ALL users.

@ Jonas:

> It's about cooperation since if someone finds another use
> for your code (s)he has the moral and legal duty to make
> the changes availlable to you.

The GPL does not require that you make changes available. You have neither moral nor legal duty to do so. It is generally appreciated if you make your changes available. However, there is no obligation.

> It's, definitely, NOT about making money with your code.

You are correct. If your values favour making money over freedom, then the GPL is not for you. [Note: I'm not implying anything about your values.] Thu, 22 May 2003 12:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? do they monkey around with it much? Thu, 22 May 2003 12:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "It's YOUR tax dollar. Would you be willing to fund a public program that other countries can steal for free ---- and because of that ---- people in other countries (where no public funds were spent) paid lower taxes than you."

Which countries are you refering to? "Steal"? Lets look at real economics here. I would argue that any country that it is classified as "third world", "developing", "ex-colonies", etc. are stolen from everyday as a part of economics. The wealth that we have in the North (North America, Europe, Japan, Australia) is largely begot from historical and present pilfering. Said again -- your high standard of living is at direct expense of others.

So yes, yes I would be *glad* if some of my tax money was spent on software that could be used in countries (especially by citizen enttities), to improve their life in someway or another.

Kudo's to Don Cox who pointed out that others can benefit from the bounty of Free Software at no expense to the creators and the said tax-payers. Thu, 22 May 2003 12:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? with gross generalisations for a diverse community? who said that Linux users don't want to pay for software? Linux users WILL pay for software, however, unlike Windows users (whom the majority are NOT technical (which is not a put down, just a fact of life)), Linux users will look at great detail and compare it to either a free or low cost alternative.

Just look at Photoshop for example. How many people really need Adobe Photoshop for what they do? lets be completely honest, how many users actually need all that power when something like Corel Photopaint or JASC Photo Shop could do the job at 1/2 the price.

I purchase software for Linux. I buy all my distributions, I subscribe to the Red Hat Network, I use Crossover Office 2.0, I own a copy of Opera 7.11. So as you can see, I do actually purchase software.

If Macromedia came out tomorrow and said they'd port Macromedia Studio MX natively to Linux, I would be more than happy to pay for a copy, in fact, I would pre-pay and willing to pay up to $100 more than the Windows version. That is how much I am committed to seeing more commercial software on Linux. I am sure there are many others out there like me willing to put their money where their mouth is and back companies willing to port their software.

Why don't Macromedia do it? I don't know. Why don't they help Codeweavers to develop wine to support their products and thus get a barometre to whether there is a demand in the Linux community? I don't know. These are questions I want answered by Macromedia and Adobe, I don't want cheap anti-GPL rhetoric, I want a solid business arguement to why not and some evidence to back it up. Thu, 22 May 2003 13:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Source code should always be peer-reviewed, and always be available to you.

Consider: if Toyota sold cars with the hoods welded shut and a license agreement saying that the end users wouldn't try to reverse-engineer them, they'd be laughed out of the industry.

If they sold a car that could only reach 40 mph and called it a "city car," and charged triple for a car that could reach 80 and called it a "highway car," and filed a lawsuit against you when you Mod'd your "city car" to run at 80, they'd no longer sell cars.

Yet in the software world it seems normal to have a powerful operating system that only accepts six file sharing clients at a time, even though the "Server" system accepts more. This is because we've been made used to it. And we have no choice in the matter.

I read an article with a Linux guru in which he was asked whether Linux was ready for the desktop, or if it was still better as a server OS. His response was classic: the Linux answer to the question is, what's the difference? In the Microsoft world we've been molded to become the customers they want to sell products to; we believe that there is a difference between a "server" and a "client." Well, of course there is ... but for HTTP, or POP3. Not for operating systems. You box should be able to do anything you want.

The free software world is one with less VC and less coordination. But it feels a whole lot better, and the more you get used to it, the more insane the world of proprietary software gets. Thu, 22 May 2003 13:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Adobe, Macromedia, and other large software companies know the audience - they know Linux users don't pay for software.

This is definitely not true. I personally take offense to this. The author makes "Linux users" sound like some cheapscates or software pirates. Neither are correct characterization of "Linux users". I think it's unfair to make generalized statement as such. It is as offensive as making a statement such as "[insert any race, gender, religion] are [insert any corresponding stereotype]". I know numerous people who would gladly pay $600 for a copy of Photoshop for Linux. The simple fact is that I cannot pay for software that doesn't exist.

Adobe or Macromedia is not developing Photoshop or Dreamweaver for Linux because they feel that they won't sell enough number of copies to justify the cost of their investment. The situation of commercial software companies developing Linux version is really a catch-22. Anyone remember the slow adoption of CD-ROM? People didn't buy CD-ROM drives because there weren't enough software titles available. Software companies didn't produce the titles because there weren't that many CD-ROM drives out there. Of course this didn't mean that there was fundamental technical flaw in the CD-ROM technlogy. This sort of catch-22 is just natural during the early adoption of any new technology. Thu, 22 May 2003 13:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm soooo sick of these "Is open source / free software good for business" articles..fuck, write about something else for god sakes. There is plenty to write about we don't need another one these articles. It seems like there is one of these articles once a week!!!! Thu, 22 May 2003 14:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? NO NO NO!!!! I have to earn my dough!
Dependece is good! Slavery is great!!!
and most of all.............
STUPIDITY IS KING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Thu, 22 May 2003 14:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Great article, Adam - thanks for contributing!

I'm interested in the "dual license" mentioned by a couple of people at the beginning of this thread. I don't want anyone to try to spell out the whole thing for me here, as that would be a lot of trouble to go to, but was wondering if someone could give me a url about it? Thanks! Thu, 22 May 2003 14:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Some people just can't handle freedom, they need a prison because their emotional neediness can't accept responsibility. So they choose safety over liberty. They choose convenience over flexability. They choose macdonald's over home cooking. And they choose microsquat over actually learning something and making an open source os into their own creation.

STUPID PEOPLE SUCK! Thu, 22 May 2003 14:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree !!! Thu, 22 May 2003 14:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Linux users don't pay for software."
Because right now they're more sophisticated. Unsophisticated users need to buy software -- users that right now use Windows. If they used Linux, they'd be buying software because they can't build it. They'd even have more money for it.


I am so sick an tired of hearing this bull. All the time "Windows users are not as smart as Linux, blah, blah, bull." I use Windows and am quite tech savvy - why? Becasue a lew of apps are windows dependent. Palin and simple. Has nothing to do with sophistication at all. Thu, 22 May 2003 14:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? For all the people here who claim to be "personally offended," you must be unfamiliar with the concept of plurality. The "Linux users" who don't pay for software is not a reference to individual people - it's an "on the whole" statement. I needn't convince anyone this is true, just look at the percentage of successful software packages available for Linux. They just aren't there. That's all the proof anyone should need, if comapnies thought they could make money, they would. That's not to say that not one copy of Linux Photoshop would be sold, just that in general, open source people know how to fake it with open source alternatives, some sub-par, others decent.

I have my issues with Microsoft, but I don't hate them to be stylish. I don't care about a headstart of 12 years, I don't care about Windows 95. I care about today. Today, Linux has some catching up to do to be a competitive desktop OS, and there's very few arguments I've read that have done anything by reconvince me of that. Generally, the people who say Windows is a terrible, insecure, beta-quality OS and Linux is the saviour haven't used Windows lately and couldn't hack into a properly configured Windows box to save their life. Thu, 22 May 2003 15:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? all software was free via Kazaa? :-) Thu, 22 May 2003 15:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You really are completely clueless, lets look at the list of failures:

1) Loki, little or no demand for games.
2) Applixware, Office suite crap when compared to StarOffice which was sold by Star Division.
3) Corel Wordperfect and Corel Draw, sucked terribly due to the immature nature of wine.
4) Mandrake, every release until 9.1 sucked terribly. Rushing releases and poor QA. Now they are getting to the end of their money box and finally worked out people aren't going to buy crap.

EVERY instance where commercial companies have failed has been due to poor management and poor business decisions, NOT the marketplace. Just look at Borland for one example who makes Kylix for Linux.

Had Corel spent the time on porting Corel Draw and Wordpefect Suite NATIVELY to Linux instead of wasting time on "netwinders" (the company that bought the netwinder division has recently gone bankrupt) and "javaports", they would have had a VERY sucessful product, but they didn't. They wanted to do it the easy way, which as a result definately showed up in their product.

There IS demand there. The demand IS for mainstream applications on Linux. When I don't spend $800 on a full version, NON-OEM, NON-UPGRADE version of Windows XP, that is $800 I don't have to spend on their product. When I spend $34.95 on a Linux distro, that leaves me with $750 I can spend on their product line up. If these so-called "business gurus" can't see it, then god help them. Thu, 22 May 2003 15:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I so far bought for Linux/BSD:

- Maya
- Softimage / Eddy / Mentalray
- Blender (books/and paypal)
- Wordperfect 2000 suite
- CorelDraw!
- StarOffice 5.2/6.0
- OpenOffice (donated money)
- WineX
- Crossover 1/2 series
- Pagestream
- Kylix 1.0 /2.0/ and 3.0
- JBuilder
- RedHat 5/6/7/8/9 series
- Lindows
- Xandros
- Mandrake 7/8/9 series
- Suse 6/7/8 series
- Rav Antivirus
- MainActor (BETA!)
- Real3D
- Black Adder
- TK (Zaurus apps from thekomany.com)
- FreeBSD cds
- OpenBSD cds
- Debian cds
- Tribes2, Soldies of Fortune, Decent
- tons of books and magazines

total is far over $50.000!
Yeah i like commercial software just as i like free software. I really am not intressted in seeing to source code of Maya but there a situations where you WANT to see/have the source, for me that are:
Operating system, webserver, email server etc.. Thu, 22 May 2003 15:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Ooops forgot:

- GearPro
- Win4lin
- Zend Accelerator
- Bru pro Backup
- IBM developer kit

euhheuh...lots of more i guess Thu, 22 May 2003 15:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Are ya freak'n kidding me - I am going to assume that you have never been in a position to rely on either of these products in order to make a living. I'm not saying that GIMP isn't a good piece of software for giving your ex-girlfriend big hips and a mullet prior to posting it online for the world to see. The point is that a professional designer or a prepress person would be laughed out of town for even suggesting that GIMP be substituted for Photoshop even in jest. Thu, 22 May 2003 15:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I can only laugh after reading your comment:

first...
1) Loki, little or no demand for games.
then...
There IS demand there.

Which is it?

I don't know where you shop, but the full version of XP has never, ever cost $800. Sorry, but that's either a flat-out lie or evidence of your ignorance. XP Pro costs 299.99, and has since day 1. And it's even cheaper on the net:
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=20345073&loc=105

The rest of your coment doesn't support your argument, you seem to imply that the current Linux companies have terrible management and make poor decisions. So what? I didn't claim that the embarassingly long list of failures is evidence. I said the companies that market professional software go where the money is. And they aren't selling Linux software. Draw your own conclusions.

P.S. I'll eat my hat if you've spent $750 dollars of your personal cash on after-market add-ons for your Linux distributions. Thu, 22 May 2003 15:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I bet a lot of people bitching about Linux on the desktop don't actually use Linux on the desktop.

Rayiner Hashem - You can consider me the first member of your fan club. Anyone else interested in joing a BS-free (as in lack of BS), straight shoot'n club?

Anyway in my case you are dead on correct. I use windows as it is the only environment that fulfills my simple requirements - can I run the following apps: Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, and of lessor importance Word, Powerpoint, and Excel. And finally will the It guy allow me to connect it to our network. As soon as Desktop Linux allows me to answer yes to the above then I'm in. Until then Bills Got my business (sorry apple our IT team has more clout then me in such matters;( Thu, 22 May 2003 16:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I bet a lot of people bitching about Linux on the desktop don't actually use Linux on the desktop.

Probably not, but a lot of us have tried it And no, most of us didn't spend the 3 years (or whatever) that is required to get a handle on it. If it ain't happeneing within a couple of weeks after I install it, it ain't happening. (And no, it didn't take me 'years' to learn Windows, so don't even start with that shit.) Thu, 22 May 2003 16:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >> I don't know where you shop, but the full version of XP has never, ever cost $800. Sorry, but that's either a flat-out lie or evidence of your ignorance. XP Pro costs 299.99, and has since day 1. multiply that with 5. Go figure. Where does the money come from? His salary of course.

>>P.S. I'll eat my hat if you've spent $750 dollars of your personal cash on after-market add-ons for your Linux distributions. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You are, of course, absolutely right. Large-scale and/or average-user-friendly software only gets developed by people who care enough to make the incredible effort required, and money (sadly) is the only thing that motivates anyone enough to make that effort.

Richard Stallman's ideals work great if you assume that all users are also expert developers. Unfortunately this does not hold true outside the sheltered academic environment in which he grew. In the real world, developers and users are mutually exclusive sets of people, with the developers writing stuff for users and users not caring anything about source code.

The only major problem with the existing commercial software model is that design choices are made based primarily on profitability for the company, and only secondarily on the needs of users. Unfortunately these two things do not always align and are often, in fact, in direct conflict.

Yours is the rare voice in the OSS/FS community that recognizes reality. And for that, I'm certain you will be flamed relentlessly for days (if not weeks) by zealots in the community who choose to ignore reality and live with blinders on.

Please keep up the honest, intelligent writing despite such flames.

- Keith F. Kelly
Software Development Engineer, Microsoft

P.S. - It should be noted that while I work for Microsoft and feel that it makes me a very unique type of OSS/FS enthusiast, my opinions expressed here are not representative of my employer. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? And this is just a partial list for Red Hat --

Available Application List
Red Hat Enterprise Linux

Are the applications needed to run your enterprise available on Red Hat Enterprise Linux? Chances are, they are - or will be soon. More and more Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) now consider Red Hat Enterprise Linux as a vital platform for their future success. Here is a list of many of the applications available on Red Hat Enterprise Linux today*:
ActiveState

* PureMessage

Am-Beo

* Rate-Rec

Avalon Net

* Lancelot
* Percival

Avatier

* PasswordStation.Net
* PasswordBouncer
* Trusted Enterprise Manager

BEA

* BEA WebLogic Server 7.0 SP1
* BEA WebLogic JRockit 7.0 (J2SE 1.3.1 and 1.4.0 certified)**

BISIL

* Enj

BMC

* Patrol - Predict
* Patrol (coming soon)
* Control-M Agent (coming soon)

California Software

* Baby Family
* BABY/Access
* BABY/OLAP
* baby.net
* baby.com
* BABY/GUI
* BABY/iSeries
* BABY/36
* Unibol Family
* Unibol400
* Unibol36

Cincom Systems

* VisualWorks

Cleo Communications

* Cleo TN3270

CommVault

* Galaxy 4.1 (Data Recovery)

Computer Associates (CA)

* Unicenter AutoSys Job Management 4.0
o Console, Server, Remote Agent, Xpert
o Oracle 9i, 8.1.7, Sybase
* Unicenter Network and Systems Management (NSM) 3.0 (in beta)
* eTrust Antivirus (coming soon)
* eTrust AccessControl (in beta)
* BrightStor ARCserve Backup (coming soon)

Constant Data

* Constant Replicator

Database Systems Corp.

* PACER Call Center Phone System
* TELEMATION CRM Software Application
* CTI Software and Softphone Application

DataPlow

* DataPlow Nasan File System
* DataPlow SAN File System

EMC

* PowerPath v3.0.2 b069

Ericom Software

* PowerTerm Host Publisher
* PowerTerm InterConnect

FalconStor

* IPStor

GenaWare

* GenaMap Vector
* GenaCell Raster

IBM

* DB2 Universal Database Enterprise Server Edition 8.1
* DB2 Universal Database Workgroup Server Edition 8.1
* DB2 Universal Database Workgroup Server Unlimited Edition 8.1
* DB2 Universal Database Personal Edition 8.1
* DB2 Personal Developer's Edition 8.1
* DB2 Universal Developer's Edition 8.1
* Director v4.1
* Director Integrator v5.1
* Directory Server v5.1
* Tivoli Enterprise Console 3.8
o Enterprise Console, Server, Gateway, UI Server, Java Console, Endpoint
o Network Management Engine
* Tivoli Enterprise Console 3.7.1
o FP3 Endpoint on a TMF
o LCF
* Tivoli Monitoring for Transaction Performance 5.1
o Web Service Courier Endpoints
o Web Service Investigator Endpoints
o Quality of Service Endpoints
* Tivoli Storage Manager 5.1.5
o Server, Client
* WebSphere Application Server 5.0
* WebSphere Application Server - Express 5.0 - Remote Server
* WebSphere Application Server for Developers 5.0
* WebSphere Application Server for Network Deployment 5.0
* WebSphere MQ for Linux 5.3

Internet Security Systems

* RealSecure 7.0 Network Sensor
* RealSecure 7.0 Server Sensor

InterSAN

* PATHLINE

iPlicity

* Kashmere Web Management Suite
o Kashmere Content Manager
o Kashmere User Manager
o Kashmere Performance Manager
o Kashmere Customer Relationship Manager

Jabber

* Jabber eXtensible Communications Platform
o Jabber Messenger
o Jabber WebClient
o Jabber SMS Gateway

JJ Labs

* WatchTower

Legato

* Legato Networker 6.1.3
o LEGATO NetWorker Server, Storage Node and Client
o LEGATO NetWorker ClientPak for Linux
o LEGATO NetWorker Module for Oracle

Leostream

* Leostream VMC

Linuxcare

* Levanta

MessageSoft

* Secure Message Gateway Storm Mail

MicroFocus

* Object COBOL Compiler

N2H2

* Bess Internet Content Filtering v2.0
* Sentian Internet Content Filtering v2.0

netForensics

* netForensics

Nitro Data Systems

* NitroEDB 3.0 Data Management Library/Engine

Oracle

* Oracle 9i Server Enterprise Edition (9.2, 9.0.1)
* Oracle 9i Server Standard Edition (9.2, 9.0.1)
* Oracle 9i RAC (9.2, 9.0.1)
* Oracle 8i Server (8.1.7)
* Oracle Express Server (6.3.4, 6.3.2.1B) with 8.1.7
* Oracle 9i Application Server Enterprise Edition (9.0.3, 9.0.2.0.1, 9.0.2) with 8i or 9i Server
* Oracle 11i eBusiness Suite (11.5.7)
* Oracle Collaboration Suite (9.0.3) with Oracle Server Enterprise Edition 9i

Pervasive

* Pervasive.SQL

Platform Computing

* Symphony
* LSF 5.0

Pramati

* Pramati Server 3.0
* Pramati Studio 3.0

Ribstone Systems

* Ribstone Information Management System
* Ribstone Capture System
* Ribstone OCR Plus
* Ribstone Perfect Print

Roaring Penguin Software

* CanIT
* CanIT-Pro

Rogue Wave

* Rogue Wave Application Tuning System (ATS)
* Rogue Wave Lightweight Enterprise Integration Framework (LEIF)
* Rogue Wave XML Object Link
* Source Pro C++ Core
* Source Pro C++ Net
* Source Pro C++ Analysis
* Source Pro C++ DB

Sane Solutions

* NetTracker Professional
* NetTracker Enterprise
* NetTracker eBusiness Edition
* NetTracker for Business Objects
* NetTracker for Cognos
* NetTracker for MicroStrategy

Sistina

* Global File System (GFS) 5.1

SteelEye

* LifeKeeper

Sychron

* Global Workload Manager

Synopsys

* U-Foundation 2003.03, 2003.06, 2003.09

Talisker Solutions

* RHEA Content Rich Applications

Tarantella

* Tranatella Enterprise 3

TOLIS Group

* BRU 17.0
* BRU-Pro 2.0

TradeCity Cybersoft

* RexIP AppServer

Trend Micro

* InterScan Messaging Security Suite
* Server Protect for Linux

VERITAS

* VERITAS Cluster Server
* VERITAS Foundation Suite (Volume Manager and File System)
* VERITAS NetBackup Business Server (server and client)
* VERITAS NetBackup Datacenter (server and client)

VMWare

* VMware Workstation
* VMware ESX Server
* VMware GSX Server

Additionally, Red Hat is working with Borland, Cadence, Mentor Graphics, Novell, Rational, Reuters, Sybase, TIBCO and many more software vendors on ports to Red Hat Enterprise Linux and future Red Hat enterprise products.

*Note: All information given is Red Hat's best estimate, and should not be construed as commitments by the software vendor or by Red Hat. Vendor support for a software product on Red Hat Enterprise Linux does not guarantee interoperability with other software or hardware products. Please contact the specific vendor for further details.

** BEA WebLogic JRockit 7.0 is available directly from Red Hat Enterprise Network for Red Hat Enterprise Linux customers. IBM's JVM 1.3.1 ships with Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (version 2.1). Thu, 22 May 2003 17:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It might not take years to learn windows, however MS Windows is not going anywhere, it's obsolete. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Free (as in freedom) software deserves support, monetary and otherwise. Proprietary software does not.

So, if a company develops a proprietary app or OS that works best for me, I shouldn't buy it? Please...I live in a place called Reality. Marxist rhetoric doesn't generally cut it here. Give me a break. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Use proprietary system but at the same time put on some handcuffs. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It doesn't matter if there are hundreds of "applications" available for Red Hat if most of them aren't suitable for average people.

BEA WebLogic JRockit 7.0? Source Pro C++ DB? Oracle 9i Server Enterprise Edition (9.2, 9.0.1)? Sorry, but your average person has no use for any of that.

Until the OSS/FS community finally learns that the vast majority of computer users are not techno geeks running web servers, very little OSS/FS software will prove viable alternatives to commercial counterparts. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Most people use a web browser, and on Linux you can choose between at least 3 of them. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >>> I have my issues with Microsoft, but I don't hate them to be stylish. I don't care about a headstart of 12 years, I don't care about Windows 95. I care about today.
>>>

I personally still don't get your point. If you are talking about servers, there are many people, including myself, who would prefer linux anyday, if only because, most of the application you would want to use are not available for windows, or not as easily configurable, as in linux. And many server apps available for linux that are NOT available for windows. And may apps where the windows version is crap, when the linux version is solid. Yes, sir, it actually is true, or do you need me to build a list?

If you are talking about the desktop, I personally have to find you annoying. You don't care about a headstart? Why, sir, did you think that good software falls from the sky? It takes work, sweat and time. I cannot belive that anybody is not amazed at the speed with which linux is moving on the desktop. A whole lot of improvements are happening every single day, what more can you wish for? We ain't there 100%, but clearly, Linux has done better than all other non-ms oses, excluding Apple. Don't be a whiny little brat, because that's all you are now. Praise and cheer on the people who are doing the good work. And if you really want to be taken serious, stop writing RFCs and write some code. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The Free Software Foundation represents a user and developer group. It doesn't need to learn anything other than what it's users want, and to provide them with the tools to do their work. You could join you know, and tell them what you want. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Microsoft has had to make the Windows OS source code available because closed-source development is a low trust environment.

Currently Microsoft Windows OS source is available to large corporations and select governments because these entities do not trust Microsoft.

Sooner or later Microsoft will have to come clean and admit that open source = trusted source and anything less than open source is not viable in the market. That is why Palladium is open source.

One of the big drivers towards finding alternatives to Microsoft is that Microsoft software is known to be riddled with spyware. Trust and price are the two biggest forces working against Microsoft right now. Many governments do not care about the price; they simply do not want to run closed-source untrustable Microsoft spyware.

Dual licensing is something that is working well in the market. It is only a matter of time before Microsoft has to embrace dual licensing so that Microsoft code can garner a modicum of trust. Otherwise Microsoft has a very big problem trying to get the world to trust the ever more Orwellian security and monitoring systems that are being built into future revisions of the OS. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Spyware, now we like being able to recomple our kernel? Thu, 22 May 2003 17:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm not sure what you mean by a passable replacement for Access. I have very little (read: no) experience with access; from what I know its just a database tool. There are certainly powerful databases available (commercially, too) for linux; but a tool like this, you might be right, is perhaps not available. But how many windows users use access? These are just questions, since I haven't used windows in a while, but I *did* use it for some 6 years, and I certainly never had a need for it.

As for the developing realm, I have found Quanta to be more than a passable replacement for Dreamweaver/Frontpage; it actually creates code that abides (for the most part) by w3c standards, which are important to me. Its also easy to use for a serious developer in the manner in which it does not get in your way. From what I hear Bluefish is also rather good; but I haven't used it much and what I saw of it, I still prefer Quanta.

As for photoshop, whether or not GIMP is a passable replacement of it is dependent on what you are doing. I find it a passable (not a good, but a passable) replacement for generating web content and simple editing. It's no Photoshop, granted, but why does it have to be? If it doesn't suffice your needs, then I guess you gotta fork over the $800+ for Photoshop+Windows.

This brings me to my biggest complaint about the "Windows vs Linux" debate; people take a commercial ton of software available for windows and compare it to what comes *default* with most Linux distributions. OSS developers have their hands full just making linux (the kernel) compete against just microsoft; why do people think that all of OSS has to beat the entire, mature, corporate superstructure of commercial software? It'd be nice, but why must it live up to those standards before its accepted?

To me, people constantly comparing GIMP v. Photoshop just shows how many light years GIMP is beyond MS Paint. Talking about how there is no Word or Excel, when there ARE passable replacements (3 open source projects each at last count; Koffice, Abi/Gnumeric, and OOo; not to mention commercial star office) at rather less than the $500 dollar price tag mentioned for MS office is rediculous. Try comparing Kate to Notepad, or finding anything close to Kdevelop in a default windows install, and you'll see where I'm coming from.

If people are going to compare the maximum capabilities of each system, then they should adjust the claimed prices of each system and then take another look. If you think that MS Office + Windows + Photoshop + Maya + Dreamweaver etc. is what you get when buying windows, you're wrong. Its what you're capable of; but its not what you get. If you want to discuss capabilities, then please add up the costs as well; all of those software are what, $500 + $200 + $600 + ??? + ???; just the first 3 is already over 1100 dollars; more than I paid for my entire machine and all of the software that I use on it. I know that other software that is talked about is also rather expensive.

I just think it shows OSS' quality that people expect the OSS community to completely replace all commercial software; and that they are being taken seriously. Its true that there are many, many OSS developers; but its also true that they (we?) are many, many man hours behind the entire corporate software machine. I give it about 2 years before linux's software meets most commercial software of today. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The author of the article claims that commercial software vendors listen to their customers and fix things. Well, Microsoft is the exception as Microsoft does not have any competition and is beholden to very few market forces.

Witness the Orwellian control systems that are being put into Windows. Which customers asked for this? Microsoft hasn't said. Most educated people are very opposed to DRM for good reason. Who wants the digital counterparts of prison chains, shackles, monitors, and policemen as part of their OS?

Microsoft is the #1 company in the world when it comes to building an OS that can turn a user's computer against them. It is a betrayal of every sacred principle of 'personal computing' and a clear indicator that Microsoft neither listens nor cares to what most of their customers want or don't want. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Wow - I think you just "don't get it." Your attitude is part of what I'm identifying when I say techies put their own priorities ahead of real users. You know, I see your name in lots of the discussions here - if you read the comments, you'd know I am a BIG TIME supporter of desktop Linux. I very anxiously await the day that Linux is able to survive, not just on my desktop, but my family and friends' desktops as well.

But, you're right, I don't care about a head start. I care about what makes my experience as a user best. And if it's closed-source, so be it. If I'm unsatisfied with the security, development cycle, etc, I have the power as a consumer to stop buying the product and switch.

There are lots of things wrong with Linux today, many of which have been discussed to death, but never really solved on a large scale or by the primary distributions market-share-wise. The die-hard attitude of "Give me free software or give me nothing" is wasted on me, and ultimately, I think, makes for a lower quality product.

In the end, yes, I'm amazed at the speed Linux is developing, which far outpaces the innovation MS has made of late. But Windows is still more cohesive. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The FSF will probably make it easier to leverage your source code. I think that frameworks should be the focus, before we leap into the Grid paradigm. At this point the advantages of source code are not obvious from it's accessibility, however object oriented technology will have a strong impact on highlighing the benefit of open implementation once it is organized into reusable frameworks. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I needn't convince anyone this is true

Excuse me?! Of course you have to convince us and you failed so far. Where is the proof? Where are the statistics? Why do those "in the know" usually claim exactly the opposite of what you are _guessing_?


just look at the percentage of successful software packages available for Linux. They just aren't there. That's all the proof anyone should need, if comapnies thought they could make money, they would.

Did it ever occure to you, that companies might not develop for Linux because it has a microscopic marketshare? Which is even more reduced thanks to the fact that you can only really integrate into one desktop, which reduces the marketshare even more? Not even considering the installation pain that users have to go through for third party applications which often makes them unsure about installing new software? You can't seriously believe that there this is a proof for Linux users not spending money. There _are_ after all many proprietary software projects, like Opera, Textmaker (or however it's called), Kylix, Kompany, Crossover, etc. Certainly more than there are for BeOS (are BeOS users reluctant to pay, too?).
Please tell me exactly which high quality commercial project do you have in mind that worked great on Linux, integrated perfectly and provided functionality which no other software provided and _still_ failed because users didn't embrace it? I have a hard time coming up with a single one, so you will have to help me out here.


open source people know how to fake it with open source alternatives

Huh?!?


I have my issues with Microsoft, but I don't hate them to be stylish.

I do neither and it absolutely doesn't matter. Please stop trying to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of beeing a zealot. Let's have a somewhat intelligent discussion and maybe you'll convince me of something or realize that you were wrong. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Michael said "The author of the article claims that commercial software vendors listen to their customers and fix things. "
No, I never said that.

Spark said "Did it ever occure to you, that companies might not develop for Linux because it has a microscopic marketshare?"
That's called a vicious circle. More Software > More Market Share > More Software > More Market Share...

and also... "Please stop trying to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of beeing a zealot."
Find me where I used the word zealot. You're making that up and using buzzwords. I never said anything like that. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? What I'm saying is that it's difficult to see the benefits of open source because there is not enough emphasis on object oriented design.

You can use a framework like Java and take research and development out of your hands by reusing the implementation of the vendor framework libraries through specialization. This appears to be an obvious advantage of using vendor technology, however this doesn't provide you with any control, it's more like the illusion of control. If you do not have access to the source code, than you can not migrate or preserve your applications, and you are dependant on the vendor.

Open source focuses on the source code, which is the control element, however it does not focus on object oriented technology, and therefore it does not make reuse accessible, like you have when you work with frameworks.

I hear developers saying that the MS Windows kernel is implemented in C++ and Linux is implemented in C, and C is better. Well if a platform were implemented in C++ than it would have a different architecture, it would use frameworks. Our current platforms are all legacy systems and both are action based C.

The source code is the control element but in order to be effective you need to make the research and development accessible. This should be the focus, but it's not really. It takes special eyes to see things. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? That's called a vicious circle. More Software > More Market Share > More Software > More Market Share...

Who disagrees with that? You can't just state the lack of one is the reason for another. Both have to climb slowly. Some smaller companies are already starting to produce software, bigger companies will probably not follow before Linux gains a significant marketshare and is simpler to develop for (especially with integration).
Don't forget that developing or porting proprietary software always costs the same, so developing software for 0,5% Linux users doesn't cost less than developing for 95% Windows users... The only thing you gain from writing Linux software today is, that you won't have much competition.


Find me where I used the word zealot. You're making that up and using buzzwords. I never said anything like that.

Man... You know what I mean. "Hating Windows to be stylish" or "Zealot", it's not nice and completely irrelevant to the discussion. It is just a try to discredit your interlocutor, please drop it. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Those of you who are saying GIMP isn't a professional tool have no idea what you are talking about. MovieGIMP is used for frame by frame editing in major motion pictures. The only real difference between MovieGIMP and GIMP is that MovieGIMP is set up to deal with frames.

GIMP may well not be able to do everything Photoshop does, but it can certainly do everything most people do with photoshop. I doubt most of these "real" graphic artists (what does that mean anyways?) have tried it more than a couple of minutes. People forget that they had to learn photoshop, and if they change programs they have to learn a new one. I can't vouch for GIMP being a photoshop replacement, but it is a tool used professionally, thus I would have to call it a professional tool. Thu, 22 May 2003 17:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The problem with Linux thus far has been massive instability in the land of so-called "distros". Now that companies like Red Hat and SuSE are emerging as leaders in the distro world, as their market share increases, commercial developers can target these platforms knowing the market is sufficiently large to turn a profit. Also, let's face it, every distro does things different. Though it is GNU/Linux at the core, anything above that level is usually specific to the way the distro creators decided to lay things out. We have standards for filesystem layout, etc. But no spec can possibly cover all bases on how an operating system should behave. It seems in the US Red Hat is quickly becoming THE standard commercial Linux distro. I think its great that this is happening. We'll always have the Slackware's, but when we developers want to harness the superiour GNU/Linux platform and make money at the same time, the large commercial distros will be where its at.

The key here is having the choice to be a purist one day and then a capitalist the next. I think this is the point the author was trying to make. It is unhealthy to decide that you're going to be a free software purist today and every single day from here on out. Just the same as it is not healthy to decide that you're only going to be a money grubbing capitalist all day every day.

As they say, the only constant thing in this world is change. Are you going to adapt to the times, or are you going to settle yourself into narrow minded comfort by choosing one way and decide to never budge from that way in the name of a "cause"? Thu, 22 May 2003 17:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Linux should focus on providing generic and general systems. The idea is to provide research that is highly reusable and accessible. Instead of developing a proprietary system in which you want to hold a monopoly, with Linux you want to develop a system that can be reused.

For example, would you rather develop a game or else develop a system in which people can reuse your research and develop thousands of games without having to do that research by themselves. At the same time you want to make it accessible to beginners, so therefore you organize it into a reusable framework so that a beginner can come along and immediately access the research without having to know about it's implementation.

Linux should focus on the group, not just the individual. Thu, 22 May 2003 18:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Apparently the 'water' in the game Morrowind is quite realistic. Personally I would like to develop my own game and I'd like to just use that water by simply inheriting that object. Maybe I like how the flying features are done in Harry Potter, well, no problem, just need to use those objects and specialize them to my needs.

I don't think that vendors are going to give away these kind of libraries, because they want to make millions. On the other hand, open source could blow all of this wide open, making it accessible to the general public. Personally I'd like the girls on Dead Or Alive beach volleyball for my own game. Thu, 22 May 2003 18:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? On the other hand, if you are tied up on MS Office than maybe you don't care. Thu, 22 May 2003 18:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You are totally right!
The problem with these so called professional artist is that they are not 'used' to any other program so rather saying: i am tyo stupid to learn anything else or i am to busy to learn anything else they say: no gimp is not good enough.
There is one backdraw with the Gimp (not FilmGimp, its perfect) it does not support CMYK color and that is a very BIG
disadvantage for DTP and Proffesional Graphics work but as an PROFFESIONAL artist i dare to say that:
1. the Gimp outpreforms Photoshop easily with bigger files (250mb+)
2. the Gimp is VERY stable.
3. the Gimp has loads of plugins, for free
4. the Gimp is supported in the BIG film industy
5. the Gimp is not as memory hunger as Photoshop is
6. EPS and PS (multipule pages) support is way better in the Gimp than in Photoshop
7. The Gimp is far more than just an Photoshop it has lots of extra (import/export features, webtemplates, fu scripts etc)
8. the Gimp is Free Software.

So is Photoshop worth the money for me? No! it certainly is not. Better get the Gimp and rgbtocmyk plugin and your off to go.

ps. The Gimp runs flawless and smooth under MacOSX btw. Thu, 22 May 2003 18:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Those of you using Loki as an example of why Linux companies can't make money need to find and read a decent history of the company. It is brutally obvious that piss-poor management drove Loki into the ground. They made ridiculously large production runs, overpaid the CEO, the CEO stole money from the company, and payroll was often made with personal loans.

I am surprsied nobody ended up in prison after that disaster. Anyways, those linux companies that are well managed seem to do fine. Look at Lycoris, Codeweavers, or Transgaming. Thu, 22 May 2003 18:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >The GIMP is wonderful. But a Photoshop counterpart it ain't.
>Ask a real graphic designer, they'll tell you. People who say
>the GIMP is a professional design tool are generally the ones
>who only use it to convert those pesky png files into the
>"more manageable" .bmp format.

My god i am feeling sorry for the forum.
I never have met anyone as dumb and shortssighted as you Adam. Do you actually believe that? I am an proffesional DTP/CGI artist myself (i get paid for it) and i use (we, as in our company) the Gimp and FilmGimp every single day. And believe me it is not only for png -> bmp. Please stop this trolling and have a little respect for other peoples choices. The world is not as black and white as you see it, luckily! Thu, 22 May 2003 18:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? it must be free software.
Ditto browsers, transport protocols, etc.
On top of that you can have all the propietary software
you want. And there will be lots. PeopleSoft is bringing
their line to Linux. That alone is a ton of software.
At what price do you pay for the shoes that feel a little
more comfortable to slip on, that don't need breaking in a little, _but_ once you put them on you can't take it off.
There is more at stake than if something "just works."
For all it's derision , GPL, Lgpl is the only licence that stops the Corps ( who are like Lions at feeding times) from tearing at each other long enough for real
cooperation.
Playing by their rules they can't discipline themselves to cooperate. That is why Linux was embraced not because
it was more advanced than Windows.
Linux is the enemy of everyones's enemies so it is everyone's friend. They came for the strategic value, but
stayed for the overall benefits.
OSS includes companies like IBM, Peoplesoft, etc, do
have the budget to improve Linux.
The more people that use Linux and OSS the better it gets.
Seems to me that there are many drones who escaped the Borg but have recurring urges to return to it's embrace. Thu, 22 May 2003 18:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >The GIMP is wonderful. But a Photoshop counterpart it ain't.
>Ask a real graphic designer, they'll tell you. People who say
>the GIMP is a professional design tool are generally the ones
>who only use it to convert those pesky png files into the
>"more manageable" .bmp format.

Do you actually believe that? I am an proffesional DTP/CGI artist myself (i get paid for it) and i use (we, as in our company) the Gimp and FilmGimp every single day. And believe me it is not only for png -> bmp. The world is not as black and white as you see it, luckily! Thu, 22 May 2003 18:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? For all who want to see my REAL comment..

http://www.osnews.com/moderation.php?news_id=3618 Thu, 22 May 2003 18:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Michael, The whole I hate microsoft thing is getting old. Let's face it, just about every post you make on osnews.com has some sort of anti-microsoft comment in it. We all know your feelings. GET OVER IT already. Move on, Microsoft is not going any where for a long time. Instead of wasting time bashing MS, try making some useful comments and suggestions on how to forward linux in IT world. Heck, write a op-ed piece about it. I would love it read it. Just get off the bash Microsoft wagon.

Please!!! Thu, 22 May 2003 18:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think that one of the big attractions of the Microsoft platform is all of the pirated software that is available for it. That's why people use it.

Linux offers a far more powerful solution to software piracy, not by becomming the new platform for piracy in the future once paladium is forced on MS users, but by offering to replace pirates with services.

If you open up (make accessible) all of the software research, than the emphasis becomes individual creativity. Those are the types of skills that are going to be rewarded in an environment of equal opportunity. I also believe that we will finally ask the important questions at this time. Instead of fighting a battle against vendors and each other, it's going to be about focusing on social needs, platform compatibility, and co-operative projects which I hope involve the development of AI. Thu, 22 May 2003 18:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? To the poster who said that Microsoft is "not going anywhere". You are absolutely correct. It's obsolete and it isn't going anywhere. I agree 100% with that statment. Have a good one. Thu, 22 May 2003 18:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I will concede that for RGB editing that GIMP is a very nice tool on par with Paintshop Pro (possibly less "Horsey" in use)... However, DTP is about far more than RGB images it's about CMYK and this is where Photoshop has proven its worth in my book.

Certainly other apps have come and gone X-res (macromedia) was nice in many ways especially in its handling of image proxies rather than the original image a tremendous time saver when my Mac Cyclone (840av)was top of the line. But processor power has removed most of those issues for me.

In terms of file size a comment was made about GIMP working better than Photoshop on images over 250mb – by the way that is one hell of a large RGB image, considering that an RGB image is likely to be around 72dpi. Even at print resolutions this would be considered very large – A CMYK image @ 300dpi image, 24" x24" only equates to a file size of 94mb. So what in the name of pete are you designing in GIMP that would ever produce a 250mb RGB file?

Another comment was made about being to stupid to learn a new tool – I prefer to call it lazy;) - cheers Thu, 22 May 2003 19:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? A CMYK image @ 300dpi image, 24" x24" only equates to a file
size of 94mb. So what in the name of pete are you designing
in GIMP that would ever produce a 250mb RGB file?

Ever heard of texture maps for the film and commercial industry they are all in RGB or RGBA mode (tif or tga) with
sometimes layed bump mappings that can go up to 500 mb!
Cinepaint (FilmGimp) CAN even retouch bigger files, not that you want it to its better to cut them in smaller pieces but it can edit files up to 3 gb. Thu, 22 May 2003 19:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The reason Microsft's Software is uniform in appearance is twofold. One, they tend not to gave the same number of graphics toolkits and the like that free software does. But, and this is the big difference, they enforce uniformity with their testing for conformance which is necessary to use a "for Windows XP" on the advertising and on the box. Commercial developers have a $ interest in conformity. Reviewers would comment negatively if package A didn't have the expected look and feel. And even solo developers are induced to use the standards by their easy availability and their coverage in books and language courses.

Me, I'll trade diversity in UI for uniformity even if the uniform is mediocre. I use dozens of packages a day in my knowledge worker role and I am more productive if I don't have to remember the peculiarities of dozens of packages. I want to focus on profit and service, not have to figure out UI differences that slow my work down

There are some things proprietary software models do better than open source. Aren't you glad we have both and can choose. Thu, 22 May 2003 19:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Adam: Don't take me too seriously I only chose to pick on the points I did because they were the only niggling flaws in an otherwise interesting and enlightening article. That being said, I remain 100% right. The magnitude of your wrongosity depends on how you position yourself against my statements.

Q.E.D.? Jeez, GoodGrief, could you get any more arrogant?

Doubtful

The GIMP is wonderful.

I forget -- is "wonderful" better, or worse than "passable"?

But a Photoshop counterpart it ain't.

The GIMP does some things that Photoshop cannot*. So I could say that Photoshop a GIMP counterpart ain't.

People who say the GIMP is a professional design tool are generally the ones who only use it to convert those pesky png files into the "more manageable" .bmp format.

If, by "professional design tool", you mean a tool that is suitable for professional design, then it verily IS a professional design tool. Cinepaint thought so too, even before it forked GIMP for Hollywood**. And fail to see what .bmp can do that .xcf can't.

As for the paying for software thing - public companies exist to make their stockholders happy and make money. If they thought they could sell, say, Photoshop or AfterEffects or Flash on Linux, they'd do it. They obviously don't.

Michael rebutted this one nicely.

"Um... have you ever called MS tech support?"

Yes, have you?

Yes, once. Once too many, as it turns out*.

They're not God, but they stand by their product

Read their EULA.

and they've sent people out to help us firefight real problems.

I don't know who "us" is, so I have no reason to disbelieve your claim of MS "sending people out", but this has no bearing on OSS. Throw enough shekels at JBoss and they'll send people out to help you firefight real problems too. That is, if you don't find your answer in the free documentation, in the multiple READMEs, on Google or in the source code to begin with.

Or pay Red Hat enough, and they'll patch your kernel for you -- which, with OSS, is often done within a matter of hours. The same process takes MicroSoft MONTHS.

Anyway, Microsoft isn't the only company that markets their support.

I agree completely. Support is also available from companies like Trolltech, MySQL AB, Xandros, ELX, Sourcefire, TransGaming Technologies....

Open source developers, for better or for worse, usually disclaim themselves from any responsibility in the README file.

See above re: MS EULA.

Don't cast me as anti-open source

I'm not trying to cast you as open source, I just wish you'd nailed everything right on (which I plainly admit is easier said than done), so that other OSS advocates could look at the article as totally unbiased -- OSS advocates can be a picky bunch.

just don't try to sell me with weak, baseless (and incredibly pompous) arguments.

Okay, I'll give you pompous But "weak [and] baseless"? You've yet to prove that my statements are anything but 100% correct, let alone that they are "weak and baseless".

One counterpoint I do need to make, is that there is too much complaining by some OSS advocates about "well yeah but MS has a big cash and time and monopoly advantage blah blah blah". Guess what -- end users don't care! In some cases, XFree environments can work better than an MS or Mac GUI, but this doesn't change the fact that proprietary GUIs are generally more cohesive and integrated than their OSS equivalents to date. NOBODY is going to say "blah and blah works better, but they have billions in the bank -- I should inconvenience myself by avoiding them!". Instead of whining that someone's opinion is wrong (which I doubt is even possible), SHUT YOUR CAKEHOLE AND/OR FIX THE PROBLEM. That's what OSS is about, after all.

------------------------
* References available upon request -- this rant is already too long.
** I could have avoided all of this by citing Cinepaint as an example of an OSS product superior to Photoshop, and avoided all this mess in the first place. Oh well. Thu, 22 May 2003 20:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? A CMYK image @ 300dpi image, 24" x24" only equates to a file
size of 94mb. So what in the name of pete are you designing
in GIMP that would ever produce a 250mb RGB file?


Your math is off.

(24*300)^2 = 51,840,000
multiply by 4 to get 32bit color (from 8 bit)
207,360,000
divide by (1024*1024) to convert bytes to Mb
= 197.75 Mb

--

Doing a new image in Photoshop will tell you the same.

You can get VERY large images when you use multiple layers , as each layer is potentially the "flat image size" unto itself. Thu, 22 May 2003 20:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? anon and dwilson

Re: your numerous supporting postings about The GIMP -- thanks! Good job of keeping it alive, and teaching me a bit about The GIMP's place in professional design.

Keith F. Kelly:

It doesn't matter if there are hundreds of "applications" available for Red Hat if most of them aren't suitable for average people.

Don't worry Keith, I'm sure Adam is a grown man and can move his own goal-posts if he should feel the need Thu, 22 May 2003 20:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Eugenia

>You can bitch at Win9x and Win3.x if you want, but don't
>put all Windows in the same bag just because they share
>the same name.

True.

>They are using different code and architectures.

Also true, but I think beside the point. It still took Microsoft about 20 years to produces a reasonable operating system (Windows 2000). I know it is a different code base (NT-based) that the rest of the systems they produced. It took them the first ten years to realize they needed to start over, and hire some outside help. Thu, 22 May 2003 20:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You know, many people seem to get very excitable in these forums. I, for one, don't get emotional about this stuff - I write about what's important to me, sometimes just to get conversation rolling. In this case, I happen to feel pretty strongly about my point.

I'm not going to keep the battle going on - if you'd like to discuss it futher, I'd gladly continue - adam [@] osnews [dot] com. Otherwise, I'll agree that you have some points, but we probably both have some other arguments in the bag we didn't crack out.

Either way, it's been a good and interesting thread. Thanks for contributing. Thu, 22 May 2003 20:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @Mr. Scheinberg:

The problems you identify regarding the current state of free software development are obviously on-target, at least to some degree. What I wonder is why you think commercial software is the only solution, or the best one?

After noting that some distributions have gotten closer to an integrated feel with each successive release, though they haven't yet reached that goal, you immediately jump to the conclusion, "This is where I believe, free software fails where commercial software succeeds. With apologies to Richard Stallman, I must repeat - not all software is best free."

I think this is quite a jump, particularly since you make it immediately after acknowledging progress being made even as you write.

It would seem to me that from the user's perspective, it is an immensely obvious truism that all software is best free, *assuming that its being free doesn't impact its quality negatively.* And that is, of course, precisely the issue here. You'd like to dredge up the old, tired corporate argument that a free/open source software development model cannot possibly produce a polished, high-quality product, at least in most areas, due to the attitudes of developers. Have you stopped to consider the possibility that the best solution here isn't commercial software, which does away with the above-noted obvious truism? Wouldn't we be better off looking for alternate solutions - perhaps trying to find ways to effect a cultural change in the community of developers you (somewhat rightly) criticize? Why give up freedom when there just might be a better alternative?

This is all a relatively new phenomenon. I think that, in light of the monumental successes accomplished by free software in a relatively short time span, it might be wise to allow things to play out before making such proclamations as, "THIS is the inherent limitation of the free software model, THIS is its advantage, it can do THIS but not THIS" etc. etc. And if you indeed care about free software and where it could go, your time would probably be better spent trying to figure out how to make it work, and not on why we should abandon it when things are difficult. Thu, 22 May 2003 20:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sure, the latest windows may feel good to you, but you have to ask yourself: how long did it take Microsoft to get to that point? MS has been around for more than 20 years, and windows has been under development for almost that long, but until very recently, and their resources notwithstanding, windows sucked big time.

First, who cares how long it was in developement. It is good RIGHT NOW. That's the only thing that count.

Plus, it's totally FALSE to say that Windows is good just until recently. The NT family is there for a fairly long time now. Windows NT 3.51 was the first very great OS released by Microsoft, around 1993. A full decade Microsoft produce a rock-stable and highly efficient OS. Yes, it may have been in the shadow of the crappy 9X kernel family, but who cares ? The real people doing real job are running NT since 1993. And it just got better and better with NT4, 2K, and finally XP. Thu, 22 May 2003 20:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It still took Microsoft about 20 years to produces a reasonable operating system (Windows 2000).

False, NT4 is my favorite first great OS from Microsoft. 2000 is nothing more than NT4 with support for DirectX and FAT32, a better NTFS, a better driver model, plus an updated interface. And even before, NT 3.51 was pretty good (stable), except for his so-so interface (based on the Win3.1 model). Thu, 22 May 2003 20:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I was wondering if anyone would tell me what the big deal is with editing in cmyk mode? I am not a graphic designer, so I don't know why it is so important; however, I am very knowledgable about digital multimedia and multimedia processing and I know that the conversion between color formats is lossless. People convert RGB to YCbCr all the time. In fact, when it comes to compressing images you can't beat YCbCr because you can keep the all the luminance while tuning the blue and red chrominance. Motion picture studios edit FilmGIMP images in RGB and they are converted to YCbCr when released in MPEG2 format for digital cinemas and dvds. There are no adverse effects. Thu, 22 May 2003 21:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? salv

>2000 is nothing more than NT4 with support for
>DirectX and FAT32, a better NTFS, a better driver model,
>plus an updated interface

Exactly. Which is why I think Win2k is the first decent OS from Microsoft. Of course, your post and mine are just opinions. Some people even thought MS-DOS was decent. Thu, 22 May 2003 21:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? But how many windows users use access?

Probably more than realize it. If you're using an app that uses a .mdb file to store its data, that is the real appeal behind Access, and what seperates it from anything I've seen on Linux thus far. Install the Access DLLs with the app and it runs without the need for the actual database program/server to be on the same machine, or to be accessed on the network/Internet.


Talking about how there is no Word or Excel, when there ARE passable replacements (3 open source projects each at last count; Koffice, Abi/Gnumeric, and OOo

That depends. The need for Word/Excel is not the capabilities of the programs themselves, but the need to be able to open their data files. If the open source alternatives can open every Word/Excel file you throw at them (or at least enough so that each individual is happy), then great ... they will do the trick. If not, then they are not passable replacements, because it's all about the data, not the applications in this particular case.


If people are going to compare the maximum capabilities of each system, then they should adjust the claimed prices of each system and then take another look.

Why? I could've bought a new car $10,000+ but chose to get bike for $100 instead .. they essentially do the same thing (getting you from one place to the other), right? So why does it matter if it takes 20x longer to get anywhere on a bike .. at least it's cheaper, right?
What's my point here? When it comes to quality software, some people don't mind paying hundreds of dollars for it, especially when they use it professionally and it puts food on the table.


why do people think that all of OSS has to beat the entire, mature, corporate superstructure of commercial software?

I would not think that, except for when people make comments like this:

Use proprietary system but at the same time put on some handcuffs.

Ok, so if free software freaks are going to make comments like that, then I feel it is only natrual to assume that for every proprietary app I use, there's a free alternative that does everything the closed-source apps do. (Or at least the ones I use.) And while you can debate the merits of Photoshop vs Gimp, I'll eat my hat if you can find me a piece of free software that does this:

http://www.propellerheads.se/products/reason/frame.html

The typical response is: "Well, how many people use that anyway?" And my answer is this ... *I* use it!! And before these rabid, drooling zealots try to lump all us closed-source users in one group of being uninformed/unintelligent sheep, perhaps they should take a minute to think about this shit before making such stupid statements. Thu, 22 May 2003 21:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Use proprietary system but at the same time put on some handcuffs.

Ok, so if free software freaks are going to make comments like that, then I feel it is only natrual to assume that for every proprietary app I use, there's a free alternative that does everything the closed-source apps do.

I fail to see how lock-in and functionality have anything to do with each other. You are just plain rabid about there not being an open sourced version of that propellerheads program and it is completely ridiculous. If you like that program then use it. It isn't anyone else's responsibility to write an open source clone for you. If that company doesn't care enough to make a linux version or try and get it running with WINE then guess what? You can't use it with linux. Too bad. Stick with Windows.

Although... it might be worth cloning that program just to see you eat your hat. Thu, 22 May 2003 21:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? >2000 is nothing more than NT4 with support for
>DirectX and FAT32, a better NTFS, a better driver model,
>plus an updated interface

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Have you ever heard of Active Directory? Sheesh... the LDAP and DNS integration alone justifies the upgrade to Win2K. Thu, 22 May 2003 21:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Free as freedom is ALWAYS a good thing. There are some cases, however, that free as beer is not practical.

I think that software-houses can sell licenses of use but they must give binaries AND the source code. Thu, 22 May 2003 21:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If you're using an app that uses a .mdb file to store its data, that is the real appeal behind Access, and what seperates it from anything I've seen on Linux thus far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Berkeley DB works like this. It's a pretty standard piece of software? If bdb doesn't have enough features for your application, then its probably database intensive enough that having to start a MySQL server is hardly your biggest concern.

It's rather pompous to believe that a program somehow needs to be 100% Word compatible to be useful. The majority of home users don't do anything more with Word than write papers and print them out. They usually don't use all the complex features that can cause incompatibility with OSS import filters. Additionally, there are users (like me who don't have to deal with this silly "Word compatibility" bullshit and are free to chose their own file formats. The volume printing office at my college doesn't take Word or Excel files, they take good old Postscript. Documents for classes are by and large sent as PDFs. Many other schools are the same way. All told, there are probably hundreds of thousands of college users alone who are not shackled by MS Office compatibility.

In reference to your bike example, it's along the lines of that "3 years" bullshit you mentioned earlier. Linux apps, are not 20x less capable than Windows apps. It's a very gross exaggeration.

As for the link to that application: congratulations, you've proven that Linux is not suitable for the audio production market. You get a cookie. Too bad we knew that already. There is no doubt that there are lots of market segments where the best-in-class application is not OSS software. Thu, 22 May 2003 21:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Darius,

It's possible to be very dedicated to free software, and even to be a free software idealist (in the sense that one believes free software is an ethical issue) without being a zealot and without lumping "all us closed-source users in one group of being uninformed/unintelligent sheep". While I understand that many people are over-zealous, there is a real issue at stake, and the rediculous statements of some do not negate this. Some of the people who believe that there shouldn't be proprietary software at all *can* recognize facts - for instance, the obvious fact that there are not viable free alternatives to everything, right now - and still argue that free software is right and should be promoted. Some of us can even understand that proprietary software has to be used sometimes, as things stand now. Seems like I'm rambling...anyway, my point is, overly-zealous and sometimes misguided statements don't mean there isn't a real argument, or that everyone who makes that argument is nuts. Thu, 22 May 2003 21:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I fail to see how lock-in and functionality have anything to do with each other.

Nothing really. Some proprietary programs are a lot less functional than their open source counterparts. However, I fail to see where you're going with this.

If you like that program then use it ... Stick with Windows

Ok, this logic makes sense to me. But by doing so, according to the previous posts, I'm locked in and wearing handcuffs. And also, I am less sophisticated than people who use Linux/open source apps. I'm don't really care if an open source version of Reason is ever created - I'm just trying to get someone to explain to me how I'm less sophisticated/unintelligent/uninformed for not using open source when there is no open source equivalent for this app?

I think that software-houses can sell licenses of use but they must give binaries AND the source code.

And if I spend $30,000 (or more creating an app), I'm going to give it to you to do whatever the hell you want with it .... why???

Berkeley DB works like this. It's a pretty standard piece of software? Can its data files be used without Berkley DB actually being on the system? (ie - frontends) If it can, then it would probably work.

It's rather pompous to believe that a program somehow needs to be 100% Word compatible to be useful. The majority of home users ....

Notice I said this sort of thing is on an individual basis ... which is why I also think it is pompous for someone to recommend OpenOffice to an MS Office user when they have no idea what kind of data files the person is working with.

Linux apps, are not 20x less capable than Windows apps. It's a very gross exaggeration.

Depends on the genre, really. Some Linux apps aren't 20x less capable than their Windows counterpart because such an app in Linux just doesn't exist.

Some of the people who believe that there shouldn't be proprietary software at all *can* recognize facts - for instance, the obvious fact that there are not viable free alternatives to everything, right now - and still argue that free software is right and should be promoted

Ok then, great ... when there are free software alternatives for everything, then we'll use them. But until then, stop being so 'overzealous', please? Thu, 22 May 2003 22:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If by 'overzealous' you mean misrepresenting the current state of free software, I'm with you on that. It does no one any good and causes frustration all around. In particular, it leads to mistaken impressions about free software and what it is and isn't capable of.

If you mean, on the other hand, that I should keep my mouth shut and not talk about what I believe is right...well, I'm afraid not. I believe its possible for people to discuss things like this rationally. I also believe that the implication that free software advocates shouldn't promote free software until the day comes when there is a free software alternative to every proprietary program, is patently absurd. Thu, 22 May 2003 22:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? RGB stands for Red, Green, and Blue (light) - such as used in your display. CMYK stands for Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black such as used by offset lithography (printing press)...

The theory is that with CMYK you can print virtually any known color (I said theory) In practice this is not true at all. The RGB color space is far more capable than CMYK. So why do we print in CMYK and not RGB? RGB color as used by your display creates color by combining "light". Printed material does not have the ability to generate its own light so it must rely on the absorption and reflection of ambient light to generate color, a BIG difference. Because the two methods of generating color are so different you get completely different color gamut (with RGB being much richer/vibrant than CMYK). Here in lies the issue; if you design in RGB, which can reproduce far more colors than CMYK and print in CMYK (far fewer colors) than how will you ever know what the final image is going to look like? (AKA how will you keep someone's skin from looking green in that great brochure you just created)

This IMHO is what sets Photoshop apart, its ability to accurately calibrate the colors shown on the on screen to those that will be reproduced at a latter time on the printing press. Trust me when I say press time is not the time to say, "well on my monitor the sky was blue but here its green, why is that? By this time your out $$$$, and lots of it. Thu, 22 May 2003 22:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? And if I spend $30,000 (or more creating an app), I'm going to give it to you to do whatever the hell you want with it .... why???

I don't think that comment has anything to do with the statement you were replying to. The author specifically said they would make licenses restricting use, just that when you purchase the software you should get the source as well. It isn't like you can change it, you just get sources with your binaries. You would still be as restricted with the source code as you are with your binary versions.

I really don't see how this would be a problem. In fact, MS is starting to swing this way with shared source and with showing windows source to governments threatening to turn to OSS. It isn't like just because they showed a company the source they can now release their own version of Windows. Thu, 22 May 2003 22:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Giving them the source with restrictions? Not possible in the GPL... they'd have to use another license. Thu, 22 May 2003 23:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? could provide for 1000 programmers for 10 years or 10,000 programmers for a year at reasonable saleries.

Amazing how those TCO numbers work out when you don't have all the added costs of managing money. Thu, 22 May 2003 23:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? chazwurth
If by 'overzealous' you mean misrepresenting the current state of free software, I'm with you on that.

Well, that's part of it but the other part is to stop making snide remarks about Windows users every time we turn around. (And I mean that in a general sense, not specifically aimed at you.) Though some people will refuse to believe it, some of us are actually capable of making intelligent decisions about the operating system/apps we use, and some of us don't end up using Linux/open source. Some of us would *like* to, just like some people would like to use all free software and can't, but we don't live in a perfect world

dwilson
It isn't like just because they showed a company the source they can now release their own version of Windows [or some other application].

If they actually had the source code at their disposal, why can't they? Sure, it may not be legal or ethical, but since when has any of that shit mattered in today's corporate world? So, going back to my example, I'm going to spend $30,000+ building an app, hand you the source, and trust that you'll do the right thing? *pffffffffffft* Thu, 22 May 2003 23:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Right, lets talk down about Linux users all we want, but DON'T YOU DARE talk about Windows users that way! You Windows zealots have balls, I'll give you that. Fri, 23 May 2003 00:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You really are a moron. I am located in Australia, think about that sunshine., hence the $800. It ranges between $700-$800. As for the so-called online stores, most of them are run be idiots who don't ship outside the US. Great, an online business that *just* sells to the US.

As for the comment regarding Loki, I stand by it. People don't want crappy ported games, they want productivity applications. That is where the demand is NOT games.

Two companies, Hancom and TheKompany are two businesses that come to mind that are producing Linux productivity software and profitable. How about take a leaf from their book of wisdom. Fri, 23 May 2003 00:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm in agreement, for the most part. I know Windows users who know exactly what they're doing. And while I've encouraged some people to migrate away from Windows, I have certain friends who I'd never advise to do so, given the current state of things. One who comes immediately to mind does professional graphic design work and audio editing; many of the tools he relies on wouldn't be available to him, certainly not with the level of functionality he has now.

In response to your reply to dwilson -- I'm not sure where you're writing from, but in the U.S. there's a fairly pro-intellectual property legal system to deal with problems like that. You don't have to trust that someone will do the right thing -- only that the courts will enforce the law. (Don't read me wrong here -- I personally don't like the idea of a license that allows viewing of the code but not modification. I'm just saying that I don't think illegal code use would be too much of a problem.) Fri, 23 May 2003 01:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? No, trust has nothing to do with it, you are counting on the law to force me to do the right thing by using NDA's, contracts, and licensing restrictions. And when I say licensing I mean REAL licensing, not an NDA that shows up and says click me after money has changed hands. That isn't a license just a scare tactic. Fri, 23 May 2003 01:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Giving them the source with restrictions? Not possible in the GPL... they'd have to use another license.

The conversation we are having isn't about the GPL, it is about Open Source. It seems you are confusing the two. Fri, 23 May 2003 01:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The fact is that Linux has 1% market share vs. 90%+ MS has (on the desktop).
Therefore all win apps have a potentially 90x larger usergroup which means that the profit is also potentially 90x larger.
As a Software company i would target the 90% of potential users because it is where i can make money and pay my bills and feed my family. I might prefer Linux for its stability, and technical reliability, but it doesn't earn me money!
As a user I might also prefer Linux, but above company doesn't offer me the apps i need to do my job, and what is offered on the linux market might be all right and free, but i can do a much better job with what i have to pay for. So i stick with it. I don't care to pay 10'000 bucks for Autocat and $1000 for Photoshop and $400 for Office. Actually, by doing so I am sure that everybody i am corresponding with can read my documents since they are using the same apps and therefore the same data format.

Business is business. The market doesn't opt for the best, otherwise AMIGA, Apple, Atari etc. would dominate the market.
In the 80s the motto was: "It has t/b 100% IBM compatible" .
"apple, atari or amiga w/- their GUIs are for computer illiterates" ...... sounds familiar, doesn't it. Fri, 23 May 2003 01:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? if you know german read the following article from "Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/technologie/0,1518,249649,00.html Fri, 23 May 2003 02:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? No, trust has nothing to do with it, you are counting on the law to force me to do the right thing by using NDA's, contracts, and licensing restrictions.

I think it does have to do with trust. If you run into some Unscrupulous software developer, how are you going to keep him from ripping off your code and sticking it in his proprietary app? Sure, there are laws, NDAs, etc but, so what? Even if you felt that his app was a little too similar to yours, you don't have his source code to prove that he ripped your code, so it appears now that you're just shit out of luck?
I'm sure MS keeps their code under pretty tight wraps, I would imagine with armed security guards and a few junk yard dogs However, this is not exacly feasable for Joe Developer who wants to release the code to his app and still control it. Are you going to force 10,000+ people who want the source to each sign NDAs? Fri, 23 May 2003 02:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The author sets up a strawman and knocks it down - no real big surprises there.
He opines: "While I agree that the principles of the FSF are noble, I also feel that there is an unspoken assumption - an assumption that pods of hobby developers across the world can coordinate on the same scale that directed companies with a budget can. Where free software has an important place in computing, so does closed-source commercial software. "

Microsoft recently announced that NT4 security was hopelessly broken and that they would not be fixing it (even if your support is paid-up and your hardware or other software will need an upgrade for Windows 2000 or XP). Pods of hobby developers across the world are still coordinating on a grander scale to maintain version 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4 of the Linux kernels for upwards of 10 hardware platforms including the ancient i386.

On Budgets: Microsoft recently declined to localize the Mac versions of IE or Office for Hebrew or Arabic - even when outsiders offered to pay Microsoft's expenses.

This begs the questions:

a. What has Mr. Stallman ever left unsaid about his beliefs concerning free software?
b. Do large commercial hardware and software companies like Industrial Light and Magic, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer, Sharp, and etc. only count as pods of hobby developers? How about the large university Comp Sci departments that sponsor open source code and projects?
c. Does the MS license even allow you to share your evaluation edition of MS server 2003 with anybody?

On the topic of my first question: Mr Stallman has said on many occasions that he would choose a crappy program that is open source over a flawless program that's closed sourced. He feels that way because a perfect digital copy is almost free to produce and because he's tired of software licenses that oppress the hell out of you and everyone you want to share things with. He thinks 2000 years of western civilization and learning have taught us that it's best to treat others like we would want to be treated - and to share our knowledge with others for our mutual advancement. Note to RMS: if you are listening I would like to be treated to silence on the subject of naming anything GNU/Linux

The notion that only pods of hobby programmers are producing open source software denies a fundamental truth about open source projects. Many governments are opting to own their software, e.g. The German government has let a contract to make KDE's mail program enterprise ready - it's actually cheaper than paying those eternal commercial licensing fees. NASA employees helped develop Beowulf clutering, NSA developed a secure Linux distribution, Mitre corporation developed the public domain CVW server and client software, and etc. Many of the largest IP companies on the planet are writing and helping to write open source applications, and operating system enhancements e.g. the Video GIMP, NUMA, JFS, XFS, etc.
AT&T was one of the largest commercial companies with a nearly unlimited budget. They still couldn't compete with the Regents, faculty, and students of the University of California at Berkley when it came to forming a community, and writing the most popular UNIX operating system distribution.

Is Microsoft sending all of us a 2003 Server Evaluation Edition? Can you even share your (English-only 180 day time limited) version with anybody if they are intersted? Will most of us need a hardware upgrade? I believe it dies in 14 days without a product activation key - doesn't it? You could download the Windows Server 2003 ISO for free, but the 180 day Evaluation Edition is the last one you get for that price. You can download various Debian ISO's and apt-get dist -upgrade forever at no additional cost if you'd like. Fri, 23 May 2003 02:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? However, this is not exacly feasable for Joe Developer who wants to release the code to his app and still control it. Are you going to force 10,000+ people who want the source to each sign NDAs?

In this case the question becomes one of trusting the law, not of whether or not it is better to release the source code.

My personal opinion is that seeing the source is necessary in many instances. I think it should be illegal for medical records to be stored on systems where the source of any application is not accessible to the hospital or medical firm. Same goes for any sort of document that should be confidential or semi-confidential including credit reports, criminal records, financial information, etc. This doesn't mean they couldn't use a Microsoft system. It simply means that MS code would be able to be audited, and the firms using the MS software should do it. The same with any other piece of software on the machine.

Using closed source software is an issue of trust. Do you really trust Microsoft? Do you really believe they have good intentions? What about all the other pieces of software on your computer, can you trust them?

I think we can agree that for computing to be truly secure open source is necessary. The law should protect code from being stolen regardless of whether you can see it or not. Fri, 23 May 2003 03:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Sorry about that uncalled outburst on my behalf, I just don't like seeing gross generalisations of people. It would be like me saying that most Windows users are morons because they don't use the CMD console.

Linux's problem isn't because lack of demand, it is because the marketplace is too small. Sure, I may want Studio MX, however, if there are only another 1000 who may want it, how is Macromedia expected to make the money back? That is why there needs to be either leadership by IBM by porting their client applications to Linux or a porting fund setup, which I proposed, that would be a co-operative where by the profits made on the products would then go back into the fund to fund more software porting.

Regarding Codeweavers, I've chatted to Codeweavers coders and they're more than happy to work with any business who wants to get their application working with wine.

Macromedia could approach Codeweavers, help them with the API's required to run their applications on Windows. As for who supports the applications, why not let Codeweavers do that? they sell a piece of software that allows one to run applications on Linux, why not outsource the support to them? Fri, 23 May 2003 04:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? While I agree that there is a place for free (both speech and beer) and commercial. I find that the arguments put forwards in this article to be very poorly thought out.

Firstly I don't really know why a good gui on a server is so necessary.... Wouldn't it be better to set up the server so that it was being administered remotely???

Secondly we all know that with the current state of play Linux is a lot less closely integrated than Windows.... But how many companies make a version of windows & how many architectures does Windows run on. This is much the same as PC hardware traditionally being a lot less integrated than their mac counterparts.

Some components are as good as anything commercial (KDE, the Linux Kernel and have every bit as much organisation and skill going into them as a commercial company)... There are other parts that need work (X being the obvious one)....
Linux as a desktop system is less than 6 years old the major desktop environments are cracking along with development cycles down to six months.

New distro's are appearing to give that totally slick intergrated feel but these are in their infancy... They charge money and I think that is fair enough. Unlike Windows they still have to be compeditive with each other.
The big distro's however appeal to their existing users more than new users.

As for Gimp vs Photoshop.... I do 6 colour printing so CMYK is not really of use for me. I find most Photoshop users very arrogant about their tool. However I would not use the gimp if I had lots of offset printing work. It is definately a workable replacement for web-design, 3d texturing, video & film work.
Cinepaint (formerly the film gimp) can do things that photoshop can't like 16bit colour layered images. It is going to be a pleasure to use once the UI gets some polish (slated for this year/next year).

Audio - this should really start to happen on Linux in the next year a lot of the work put into the next kernel and alsa should really start to pay off...

As for Linux users not buying commercial software. I think this characterisation is extremely unfair...

I use both commercial and open source software and have purchased commercial products..

I don't understand why companies don't opensource their code but then charge for all the other IP in their product artwork, name etc... If somebody takes your code and uses it to make a better product you now have full rights to access their improvements... I guess that GPL hasn't been tested legally yet so no one is prepared to take that risk. Fri, 23 May 2003 04:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If we are completely honest with ourselves, how many of us really need to use Photoshop? sure, there are a small 5% who are graphic artists, but do the rest of us really need to use it? Even Paint Shop and Photopaint are an overkill for most people.

Regarding GIMP, the only issue I have is its terrible usability and concept of having a new window for everything. IMHO they should group it together like Photoshop. It took me ages, for example that I had to right click on the picture to get to the save dialog box. Not not have a über menu at the top just like any other application that is available instead of having a menu for each window? Fri, 23 May 2003 05:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? nothing wrong with free software or proprietary software. The only thing which is a huge problem is GPL licensed software... Fri, 23 May 2003 10:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? To the Writer of this Article,

I dont think you understand whats termed by free software
and should probably understand it and get a clue.

Free software is infact Free but the Technical Support for it is sometimes not.

And if you want to start comparing linux to windows 2003
you should be using all beta stuff like kernel-2.6.69
and the latest X-Windows and Window Managers

Proprietary and Non-Proprietary software is not wrong or write, it depends on your opinion and views.

There would be more people in the opensource working on linux than that of microsoft, even with its money,
and in this current time, most linux distributions are as good or beter than windows in some instances.

Regards
Paul Fri, 23 May 2003 11:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I spend most of my working day on Windows2000...
(which should really be called NT2000 to avoid confusion about codebase - as some have pointed out already)
... and conversely to the author -
I am always aghast with how poorly it performs in terms of multitasking and stability.
Case in point :
1) format a floppy and try to do anything else - even on an IBM P_1.8ghz and 256 ram it runs like a cow.
2) I can be burning a cd, playing some mp3, downloading stuff from the net at home on 1 account - and switch to another X-account (thanks for making this a cinch Xandros) and I see no lag whatsoever, all this on a Dell_800mhz, with 128 mb ram ... so who produces the real quality (closed-source/M$ or OSS/FSF... ???
- I too am happy we have a choice ... needless to say mine has been made.

LB Fri, 23 May 2003 13:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? It's probably a lot of premium flames I am missing by not reading this comment thread. All I want to say is:

Excellent article, right on the mark. Don't heed the flames. Fri, 23 May 2003 13:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think the problem about GUIs is that it needs time.
Proprietary and free software have two different approaches on software development.

Proprietary software:
Max care on packaging, and after all the GUI is part of the packaging... Each version of the software holds more or less the same GUI and improves functionality on the underlieing code. Anyone remembers MS Internet Explorer 1.0? Very buggy. Now it's perhaps the best browser. Its interface changed very little.

Free software:
At first users are very specialized (hackers) and they cooperate in the development. But hackers don't need GUIs. They only take care about strenghtening the code. But while they gain more and more users (most of whom become also developers, remember!), they begin to make it available also to more unexperienced users. It happened with KDE and Gnome.

At present Linux is not yet ready for the desktop market. I don't know when this will happen, but, remember, while for Windows this is the starting point, for Linux it's one of the ultimate goals.

Linux may lack unity, but there are many projects that could remedy that, for example LSB (Linux Standard Base).

You have to take in mind that Linux users have the chance to become developers. Ever tried to program under Linux? I suggest you to! Fri, 23 May 2003 15:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? First off, I don't usually write to news services to complain about articles. This is the first time.

I'm very surprised that web publication of this quality would publish an article by someone who has a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the word free, when applied to free software.

In particular I'm referring to the paragraph "With apologies to Richard Stallman, I must repeat - not all software is best free. New distributions like Xandros and LindowsOS are taking action not usually taken in the free software realm: employing graphical designers to make the system and logos cleaner, brushing up on points that are less important to the functionality of the system but important to the user actually using it"

It is obvious that he has not read Richard Stallman's works, or he would know that free does NOT refer to price when dealing with free software. It is dealing with source code availablity. If you distribute (for money or not) binary code under the GPL you must also make the source for that code available so that you are free to change the code as you want.

It also appears to me, that this is an example of FUD of the worst kind. An "expert" who claims that the newest Windows (beta...) is better then the current Linux. What further irritated me was that along with this artical are 172 comments, of the sort that are defending Linux in the most backhanded way possible, or defending the articles position (which as I've said earlier is based on the wrong meaning of free). Consider the first comment.

"Also, your article is disingenuous when it comes to Linux:

1. Slow mouse tracking is very fixed in the latest development kernels and with the next stable release of Linux, this issue will no longer exist. The next kernel will also have ALSA, providing a stronger foundation for sound.

2. It is clear to most people that the quality of Windows 2003 is not comparable to that of Linux because the resources available. If the Linux community put in billions of dollars of funding into the next version of Linux and took four years, I'm sure it would be very good as well."

What I think we have here is part of an ongoing campaign to fuel FUD about Linux, and I'm very disappointed in your news site.

Chris Bruner
Crystal Software (Canada) Inc. Fri, 23 May 2003 15:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have a friend who uses reason a fair bit; and yes there are no things like it on linux, so he uses windows. There's nothing wrong with that.

My point was only that if he wanted to compare my linux system w/ his windows system, he should probably throw in the ($1000?) price tag of reason along with it, since without it, he does not have the argument "but it doesn't exist on linux"; because without fat sacks of cash money, many of these programs won't exist on windows for any of you, either.

Pshop, Office, Reason, Dreamweaver, etc. These are expensive apps (although not as expensive as enterprise level unix apps, i'll give you that)... for someone who has and uses all of these; theres no reason to switch to linux; you already have an assortment of the best of the best. But for someone who doesn't, linux does a pretty good job at 1/100th the cost. Fri, 23 May 2003 16:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Adam Scheinberg writes
"A question to pose, before we go any further, is "How important is look at feel?" I won't get into preference details, but suffice it to say that I believe a machine should, these days, look and feel modern and sleek. Windows, since Windows 2000, accomplishes this, as does OS X. Linux distros have gotten closer with each successive release - Mandrake's Galaxy, Red Hat's Bluecurve, and SuSE's new theme are all getting closer. But most distributions in general still feel like a collective work. This is where I believe, free software fails where commercial software succeeds."

Adam Scheinberg also writes, in a post to an article titled "Why Mandrake 9.1 makes me laugh" on Apr 16.

"Having used Mandrake 9.1 since the day it came out, I can say that this article over the top. Bamboo certainly lacks some polish and consistency -- as do all Linux distributions, including Red Hat. Comparing to Windows XP and OS X is only fair when you are talking long term - no Linux company has the resources, time, or unilateral direction to make the strides that powerhouses Microsoft and Apple can, and every Linux user should accept that. Saying the distribution sucks for the reasons he did is like saying telescopes suck because you can't see grains of sand on Mars. We're just not there yet.

I applaud Mandrakesoft and RH on their work of late. Perhaps SuSE will make a similar jump in quality with one of their upcoming releases. I'm not above criticism, but I certainly think that if Open/Save dialogs being too small is one of your chief complaints, you need to rethink your words before you make your view so obnoxiously public.

That said, some of what the author said does have merit. My advice to the author would be: Use bugzilla. And for God's sake, be patient, guy."

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3292&offset=15&ro...

Is it the same Adam Scheinberg? Within a month Adam seems to have changed his tune. Sat, 24 May 2003 06:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? How is that inconsistent, pmbx?

On one hand, he says he's a linux user and admires how far it's come, but it's still got a ways to go and we should all be patient. He also adds that no current company has the capital/priorities to make desktop linux succeed yet.

In this article, he said it feels inconsistent and not as responsive as Windows, and that this is likely because the developers are not working on a team the way commercial teams do.

Those opinions seem extensions of one another, not opposite. Please explain futher, you've only convinced me he IS consistent. Sat, 24 May 2003 22:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The point is also that most non-free software developers simply can't create their software for Linux: you should either create a static version of your software relying only on some common Linux libraries (XFree and libc), thus increasing the hardware requirements or compile your software for every version for all possible libraries' versions and their variants (like QT library compiled with different GCC versions). Also it's not guaranteed that Linux counterparts of Win32 libraries will run with the same performance (e.g. QT is very slow on old PCs). Mon, 26 May 2003 09:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think it's not right. See Microsoft's software - they have resources but does their software have adequate quality? I use free and commercial software. It's no problem for me to pay for software that fulfils my needs (and has adequate price). You can participate on free (and mostly open source) projects. You can sponsor projects you are using by various ways.
You say free software programmers implement features they need themselves. That's true (at least in initial phases of development) and that's true that commercial companies makes things that brings maximal profit to them, too.
And what you pay for more willingly as 'user'? For something you can see (new look and feel, bigger buttons, more colored windows, new sounds) or for some pointless changes to that strange software entrails:o) Tue, 27 May 2003 13:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments