OSNews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thats the problem

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

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

Just a minor quibble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited 2008-01-24 22:54 UTC

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

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

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

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