Feature: Is Open Source for Windows Less Important? 197
The following was written by Frank Faubert
With the release of Qt 2.0, Troll Tech has been kind enough to license the Unix/X11 version of their flagship product under an open source license for use with other open source projects. Why are they doing this? According to their web site it's because they "have a strong dedication to the free software movement" and "believe that it is the most interesting alternative to Microsoft's near-monopoly situation on desktop software". What do they get out of it? From the same page, they hope to "spread usage of Qt around the world". This is all well and good, and looks like a win/win for everyone involved, but I have one lingering question... What about Windows?
If two of the goals of the Qt Free Edition are to help the free software movement and spread the usage of Qt, why not release the Windows edition under the same license? There are many open source projects which run on Windows as well as Unix (Apache, Mozilla, Perl, CVS, and AbiWord just to name a few); why should these packages be discriminated against.
Consider Apache for a moment. Porting Apache to Windows has helped it capture roughly 57% of the web server market which has caused Microsoft no end of aggravation. However, if somebody wanted to write a cross platform GUI configuration utility for Apache using Qt, they would not be able to release it under Windows. I fail to see how this meets the goals of the Qt Free Edition.
Like it or not, Windows has a monopoly on the desktop market, and it is going to take quite a while for anything to change that. Having more open source software that runs on Windows as well as UNIX can only help facilitate that change. Releasing the Qt Free Edition for Windows would be a big step in that direction.
Open source software that runs on Windows is no less open than its Unix counterparts, and should not be treated that way. I ask anyone who is reading this to either tell me that I am insane, or to write to Troll Tech and ask them to consider releasing the Qt Free Edition for Windows. Questions 20 and 21 of their FAQ prove they often get requests for this. If more of us ask...
Ed: Me personally, I believe that Troll Tech has the right to market their product in whatever way they wish, and I honestly believe that Qt under Windows is a huge achievement and wish them the best in its development. However, what about the folks that wish to port their Open Source Qt Application from Unix to Windows? Does development under Windows intrinsically cut a developer off from a few of the most important resources found in any Open Sourced project (those being right tools for the job, and the programming minds themselves)? Is there even a good solution for this situation?
Open Qt for Windows (Score:1)
GTK+ (Score:1)
Read the QPL icense in question yourself and figure out what's going on if you code QT apps.
I prefer GTK+ [gtk.org], which is free (LGPL) on all platforms.
Here, here! (Score:1)
In short, yes (Score:1)
I don't think open source is about world domination, it's about sharing software with people who want it, and the number of people who benefit from open source on windows will be next to none.
Apache? (Score:3)
Porting Apache to Windows has helped it capture roughly 57% of the web server market which has caused Microsoft no end of aggravation.
Really? What percentage among those servers (ones that are visible from "the outside") runs on Windows? 0.1%? 0.01%? What percentage of them are even administered by people who have Apache for Windows elsewhere?
The only thing, Windows port of Apache did, was slowing down the development of Apache and its modules -- look at Apache or mod_perl source and count #ifdef'ed Windows-isms and various hacks made to deal with them. The same applies to almost eveyt other unix-project-ported-to-Windows.
Open Source for Windows isn't the issue (Score:3)
The obvious answer is yes, Open Source (at least as far as it is defined with respect to the GNU Copyleft definition) is not only less important, but almost undesirable in the commercial marketplace. There are certain areas where commercial advantage can be gained by "open sourcing" libraries, protocols, and other building block technologies. But companies with millions in revenue and hundreds of employees to support will not be able to build a credible business case for engineering based on a concept that boils down to "whatever innovations we create will be made immediately available to our competitors."
Contrary to popular myth, companies that open source their product line don't survive in this industry (in any meaningful way). They simply cannot generate the revenue required to compete with all the companies that retain their competitive advantage.
On platforms where the commercial developer community is small (i.e., Linux et al.) relative to the industry as a whole, open sourcing makes a lot more sense since most of the products are still small enough in scope to be engineered by a handful of individuals sharing technologies. At the point a 20 person team is required to engineer, distribute, and support a Linux app, you'll quickly see how little of it ends up being open sourced simply due to the economics.
And I'm not talking about 20 people hacking a Linux kernel in their spare time. I'm talking about a full time staff of engineers, tech writers, QA personnel, tech support, and management. You can't make that sort of enterprise function without revenue and positive cash flow.
Re:Windows open source (Score:3)
On the other hand, some of the advantages of open source don't apply to Windows, because the OS itself is closed. One of the greatest advantages to open source is that the open source community can fix bugs from the kernel level upward, which allows us to avoid kludges and workarounds from bugs in the OS. On Windows, if you find a bug in the OS that affects your program, you have no choice but to kludge around it. Under Linux, BSD etc., you can try to find the bug instead of working around it. Actually, you are less likely to have these type of problems in the first place, because someone else may have already done this.
I guess my point is, that open source software on Windows is a good thing, but many of the advantages of open source will never exist on a closed source platform.
Peace.
Troll Tech costings (Score:1)
I assume that they've estimated and factored into their costings the less tangible items such as the negative perceptions caused by the licensing.
The trouble is, of course, that it's so easy to estimate the intangibles incorrectly.
Open software is a good thing (Score:1)
"For software to be reusable, it first has to be usable." - Stroustrup
Re:Fork! (Score:1)
_________________________
Words of Wisdom:
Re:Fork! (Score:1)
Why not Free for Windows? (Score:1)
Troll Tech are *OK* (Score:3)
And the non-free status of the Windows port is all for the better.
Wake *UP* people - they are doing us a favour! They are funding development which helps the cause of Linux, BSD and friends, and they are doing it at the expense of the Windows market *only*.
This solution is not only acceptable to me - it's damned near ideal. If the windows port was open-source, then it would retard the cause of free software in two ways:
1. It would deprive Troll Tech of revenues which allow them to *pay* engineers to work on the *free* X11 port.
2. It would allow Windows users to use cool, free software that normally runs on *nix platforms - thus reducing their incentive to switch. We want to drive the application availability situation to the advantage of Linux, etc. people!
The Windows Problem (Score:1)
Re:In short, evolve (Score:1)
Even people who develop on Windows don't care about open source. Really... that's funny I develop for Windows I care about Open Source. I feel it's possibly one of the greatest movements in programming history. Every Windows Developer I know (which granted is only a handful) thinks Open Source is a great idea.
it's about sharing software with people who want it, and the number of people who benefit from open source on windows will be next to none.
I'm really curious where you get this idea that Windows developers don't want Open Source. Do you know programmers who say "No I don't want any helpful ideas I'd prefer to do everything from scratch". The fact is that Open Source is equally beneficial whether you're developing for UNIX, Linux, Windows, Be, or the TRS-80. Unfortunately Windows has a large already established base of Closed Source Software and the developers for Windows lack the fanatic devotion to OSS that Linux has, so there's much less incentive to develop OSS for Windows but this has nothing to do with whether it's appreciated, or beneficial to the community.
Round 'n' Round Win32 goes.. Where it stops... (Score:1)
Re:Windows open source (Score:1)
Two interesting mini-essays that are fairly relevant below, both from the same guy (over at geeknews); the first re why Windows programming is actually fun, and the second about Linux and the common user.
Just my $0.02.
Why Penguins Can't Fly On The Desktop [geeknews.net]
Who Needs a Road Map? [geeknews.net]
Re:In short, evolve (Score:1)
Open Source in Windows is needed (Score:1)
But Troll Tech owns the code and can do whatever they like with it. Both GTK and wxWindows is available on Windows. Instead of whining about Qt, I think people should use wxWindows or gtk. When Troll Tech start losing money on their strategy they will surely change to a more open approach.
Java? (Score:1)
Hmm. The majority of my recent open source coding efforts have been in Java. I'm still not positive whether Sun's licence counts as Open Source (TM) or not, but it means that the code I write can run very nicely on both closed and open operating systems.
For that matter, when I write in C, I seldom rely on more than just the standard C library (plus Pthreads and a few Posix calls), which is a "platform" that also works more-or-less unmodified on both closed and open operating systems.
My point is, who cares? As long as my license doesn't prevent it (and for my purposes that would be ridiculous), porting for me is either zero or trivial effort. So why not?
And if I didn't do it myself, the very nature of open sourcing my code would make it easy and legal for someone else to do the port for me. Witness the Cygnus ports of the GNU tools. Don't tell me Stallman was planning to do Windows ports himself!
-- Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Re:This is why! (Score:2)
...nothing is different. The X11 version is GPL and the Win version is closed. Same 'ol thing. The license doesn't matter, the Freedom does. Get a clue.
People who want Qt or any other Free Software project to die are not interested in Freedom at all. They are the worst sort of hypocrites and are no better than Bill the Gates.
What about MacOS? (Score:1)
Free Development tools under Windows? (Score:1)
I honestly don't know the answer, but I do know that free software is dead upon arrival in an environment without free development tools. People who pay $100 for a compiler always want to retrieve their "investment" with shareware fees.
--
I claim they will (Score:1)
I can't agree. Being a long time djgpp gcc user under Windows, I valued open source a long time before I heard about Linux as a serious alternative.
I've talked to some young computer owners that had outgrown Basic and wanted to know if there is a decent C/C++ compiler that doesn't cost hundreds of dollars. Their usual reaction on hearing that djgpp is free is - wow, must be really bad huh? After they try it, they are usually amazed at the completeness and high quality, not to mention better standards. They are forced to think about how that can happen, and they get used to unix-like tools in the process.
I agree that people should switch their OS to Linux as soon as possible, dual boot if not. But a good way to get people to switch is to associate high quality zero price software on the Windows platform with the names "open source" and "free software". This lends credibility to the idea that Linux can be as good as people say.
That's all tactics though. The real issue is that "open source" and "free software" isn't about any one operating system. GNU is NOT Unix!
Jim
Re:Troll Tech are *OK* (Score:1)
You have to write software for its users, not for your own enhancement. And the sad fact is that as it stands right now Linux is simply NOT at a level where my mother could use it. Until that point, she'll stick with buggy old Windows, because its something she can use without calling me every 10 minutes.
If I write software for geeks like me, only geeks like me are going to use it. I don't know about you guys, but when I sit down to write a bit o code, I do it with the intent of helping somebody out. Most of the people on Linux either already coded it themselves or don't need it. Whereas on Windows, people will use it.
Open source for Linux/UNIX more important (Score:1)
Forked? Not really! (Score:2)
On the other hand, communication between GNOME and KDE (and Enlightenment, WindowMaker, FVWM, etc...) is less than desired, but that does not inhibet using ANY of the apps.
You're argument is not backed up by fact. Rather, KDE and GNOME are moving TOWARDS interoperability instead of away from.
Open Source for Windows?! Are you nuts?! (Score:2)
1) Troll Tech makes QT/Windows free
2) New Killer Linux/QT App X is ported to windows
3) Everyone buys Windows to run Killer App X
4) More cash rolls in to Microsoft
Isn't it obvious the entity that profits most here is Microsoft? Like I really want to ENCOURAGE people to buy more copies of Windows. I'm eagerly anticipating the day when Windows goes the way of everything else proprietary. The only open-source project related to Windows I think would make sense currently would be clones.
Developers are the operating system's lifeblood- no developers, no apps, relatively worthless OS. I never intend to write an open-source Windows app and actually admit to it. Why do you think MS invests all kinds of money to pull developers over to Windows? I think they know that's one of their last weapons left.
Hmm... I think I'll stick with Linux. I hope Troll Tech continues to suck the MS developer market dry, personally.
KDE QT and for profit software (Score:1)
Is Troll Tech encouraging the spread of the love across the land so that they can get a PLATFORM / PROGRAMMER BASE using their library. Now when someone wants to make a piece of for profit software (this includes desktop apps just for your corp net, or ANYTHING you aren't gonna give the source code to the world for) then you have to pay them. Does this also mean that KDE is relegated to ONLY running OSS software?
To mean this seems like the perfect form of vendor locking and virial infection marketing
Maybe I am being a little to skeptical but common, software shops have been doing this for years. This smells of
GTK seems like the answer. Would I submit changes to the QT OSS project if I can't use it in my commercial apps? no.
Re:Open Source in Windows is needed (Score:1)
Re:Open Source for Windows isn't the issue (Score:2)
companies with millions in revenue and hundreds of employees to support will not be able to build a credible business case for engineering based on a concept that boils down to "whatever innovations we create will be made immediately available to our competitors.
The whole point of open-source is you totally get away from that mindset. You no longer sit in your cathedral, paying internal programmers to come up with something, and then "release it to your competitors." Open source is not about giving away research and innovation. It's about not investing in the first place--using what is already there, adding to it, and integrating innovations that you and others come up with.
I'd never recommend a company to invest millions of dollars into a software and then just "give it away." The point is to start with existing code, and an existing developer/user-base, and work from there.
Contrary to popular myth, companies that open source their product line don't survive in this industry (in any meaningful way). They simply cannot generate the revenue required to compete with all the companies that retain their competitive advantage.
Please tell this to RedHat. They are doing it right. RedHat doesn't slave away creating huge monstrous projects then just releasing them for free! They take what is out there, add value and support, and sell the added value and support. True, they also contribute code, but this is only part of their overall strategy.
At the point a 20 person team is required to engineer, distribute, and support a Linux app, you'll quickly see how little of it ends up being open sourced simply due to the economics.
There are far too many examples of open-source projects that defy this assertion to even list. The point is, none of these projects are developed in a closed, in-house way. I agree... Anyone who invests in engineers, QA, testers and distributors, and then gives their product away is a fool. But on the other hand, if you use the open-source model the way it is intended, it makes good business sense.
Is Open Source about Good vs. Evil? (Score:4)
Remember that as a community, we Open Source folks get our strength from building off each other's strengths, and sharing our own for what I hope is some kind of greater good. Part of that greater good, I hope, is alleviating the need for developers to reinvent the wheel, as there are so many things that developers need in common, that we can benefit from sharing and improving common tools and libraries. The other part of that greater good is to help people like myself, when I was younger and more naive, and scraped together enough money to buy a computer only to find I could not afford the software to do anything useful. Open Source, and at that time shareware, was the only way I could claw my way out of ignorance and learn how to program to harness the power of my machine.
That has nothing to do with Microsoft, and I know that restricting Open Source technology from the Windows platform certainly does not strengthen any Open Source ideals. It is not going to make anyone ``switch'' away from the Bad Way. In fact, it can only serve to do the opposite, to paint the picture of the Open Source movement as a bunch of elitist and closed(!) minded individuals, who are willing to share only if you agree with their ideals! How is that going to help people join the cause?
On the other hand, let's imagine that someone that has never experienced the Open Source Way, using his/her Evil Operating System, discovers a ray of hope in some small library, or some other project. Suppose he/she benefits from it, or submits a change and discovers what Open Source is really all about? Then won't that have been part of the greater good?
Open Source is about creating, not about destroying, whether it be closed-source development, or Microsoft. Make sure that people realize that, and that we're not just a bunch of petty Linux and BSD bigots.
Re:Fork! (Score:1)
MFC is nowhere near open source. The source is provided "for reference only". There is no guarantee that the source you have is the source that was used to compile the library you're linking against. There are no makefiles, or build environments to allow you to fix a bug if you find it. I once found a one-line-fix memory link in an old version of MFC (CString wouldn't free memory on reallocations for larger strings, for those keeping score), but had no means to fix it for my program. I just had to pray the program wouldn't be running long enough for it to be a problem.
At least the Symantec compiler guaranteed they library source and the batch files they give you were used to build the libraries, so you *could* fix any bugs you found. You were allowed to redistribute the product of such repairs, but not the source used to create them. Still not "Free", but closer...
it's the porting... (Score:1)
But I think we can all admit moving native-level code from UN*Xen to Windows is a non-trivial task (not counting Java, and Perl/Python/friends have their own cross-platform nuances). Thus, the differing licenses cover porting cost/effort in order to satisfy Windows consumers who are used to paying up the nose for all software anyway ("Want to change your startup screen? We have a nice shareware app to do that for just 10 dollars...").
If Windows becomes a better environment for writing/testing open software, maybe we'll see more work being done for it. But at present I just don't see that happening. So I expect UNIXen will continue to dominate in the open software category.
M$-Windows Open Source is *very* important! (Score:1)
Besides, saying that open source is cool for everything except M$-Windows reminds me of "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others"...
No, I can't spell!
-"Run to that wall until I tell you to stop"
(tagadum,tagadum,tagadum
-"stop...."
need more Linux software on Windows (Score:3)
Many people use both Linux and Windows and would like to have the same tools available on both, including tools and software they develop themselves.
And making free Linux/UNIX software like the Gimp available on Windows makes Windows users more familiar with Linux software. That makes it easier for Windows users to transition onto non-Windows platforms, and it makes it easier for institutions to deploy a single set of tools across all platforms.
As a developer, I look carefully at where I invest time to learn new tools. A tool that is free on only some platforms and costs lots of money on other platforms is not very attractive to me.
I believe that Qt could probably succeed as well as it does if both its UNIX and Windows versions were released under GPL (not LGPL), with separate commercial licenses for commercial developers. I still find the current licensing situation of Qt to be a major obstacle to using it.
Bitching at Troll Tech (Score:5)
1) Release both X11 and Win versions under a Free Software license. Result: severe and fatal drop in revenue. Would you spend even 10$ on a free software library? Can you name even one person who paid for GTK? Some large corps will pay for it but few others. Under Qt you don't need support at all. It's built too well to need it. But Linux users will still complain. As long as there exists a price list for Qt, they'll bitch about it. They don't want Free Software, they want freeware. "Why should I pay $1000 for Qt?" is the same as saying "Why should I pay $80 for Redhat".
2) Release both versions as Free for Free development and proprietary for proprietary development. Result: possibly only a slight drop in revenue. This option is probably optimal. However, the bitching won't stop because the average Linux user is an irrational creature. They don't want to create Free Software, they want to destroy proprietary software. Their zeal in condemning any and everything that isn't 100% GPL is proof enough that they don't want choice. They could care less that Qt is Free Software. If Troll went out of business and Qt transferred to a BSD license, they would still bitch about it.
3) Continue as they are, X/11 Free, Win non-free and proprietary usage non-free. Result: same as today. People irrationally bitching about it. Any valid argument for additionally freeing the Windows version is drowned out in the cacophony of hatred.
Windows? (Score:1)
My 2 cents worth
Re:Fork! (Score:1)
It isn't. Being able to see (and possibly modify) the source code doesn't make it open source.
The MFC source is available purely to make debugging and working around its bugs easier.
Open source under Windows (Score:1)
I use and develop under Windows. I just deleted two paragraphs of excuses as to why I do this. I imagine if you really need to see them they won't help.
I've been working on a project for a while - it's not useful or anything I could make a lot of money on, but it can be a lot of fun to use, and a lot of fun to hack on. (hint: realtime controllable abstract 2d graphics a la euro-demos (eg, second reality)). I think that other people would also have fun playing with it, and poking at the code too, so I would like to open up the source.
Though I do use and develop under windows, I am not a bad person - The basic rendering and display routines are portable. Platform specific code is localized in one module, everything else is generic enough C++ that it compiles under 3 or 4 compilers, on 3 or 4 platforms (Win32 (directdraw& dev studio | c++builder), linux (svgalib & gcc), MacOS (hell if I know & metroworks), and DOS (int10 & djgpp)).
This is important, since I don't feel I can reasonably expect a lot of positive results if I open up source code that's too closely tied to commercial development tools and Windows, and I'll definately be able to find a lot more interested geeks who tinker with open source projects if things work under linux.
However, another requirement for this to work is that the programme be usable by people other than me. Right now I've been forced to make an obscure interface which relies on memorizing a list of reasonably random keyboard commands, and it doesn't even work well for me. What it really needs is a GUI.
But how do I implement a GUI in a portable way? It's important that things still work on Windows, but if things are only usable under windows, it's probably not worth the bother of opening up the source.
If there were something such as the QT widget library available (I don't have $1000 to throw at this project.) it would be easier for me to open up my code which already runs under Windows. This is good for everybody.
I care enough about open source and portability that I think I'm going to end up making an entirely separate programme out of my UI (written in Java/Swing) which communicates with the "engine" (which needs to be faster - C++) through TCP/IP or something. This is not the simplest solution I can imagine.
I am aware that this solution does has some advantages, but it's enough of a pain in the ass that if I merely think open source is only a kind-of-good idea, it wouldn't be worth the hassle.
-me
Re:What about MacOS? (Score:1)
ftp://ftp.apple.com/developer/Tool_Chest/Core_M
You're right, programming is not particularly convenient under MacOS. But MPW has been available for free for almost two years now, so expensive tools should no longer be the issue they once were.
-Mars
Re:The Windows Problem (Score:1)
I was surprised to find that Dev Studio also generated faster code.
Re:The Windows Problem (Score:1)
--
GTK for W95 (Score:1)
Re:Open Source for Windows isn't the issue (Score:2)
ESR's papers [opensource.org] explain the business model. In short, it is very hard/impossible to make money selling open source software. So don't even try.
Open source software does not exist in the marketplace as a product; it exists mostly as a marketing "ploy". Remember, if you are making open source software, you are the resident expert. In today's market, such expertise is the product. Take Perl, written by Larry Wall, paid by O'Reilly books. Perl itself is free. O'Reilly's books aren't. And O'Reilly's books Perl books sell for two big reasons:
1) Since Perl is so effective, everybody wants to use it, thus to learn it.
2) Since Wall writes books for O'Reilly, they make much better Perl books than anybody else.
Currently, you can still make money "selling" open source Linux. That is, you sell the CDs, so that people don't have to spend hours downloading it via FTP (and blowing up the net connection halfway through...). Red Hat realizes that this will not last forever; they expect the download speed to increase faster than the code base, and thus the value of the CD is plummeting.
Red Hat's new business model is consulting and support. They box Linux, thus they have some serious expertise, and can land some big name consulting accounts.
Re:Open source under Windows (Score:1)
Re:Troll Tech are *OK* (Score:1)
it..."
Ryan, KDE is getting there, fast. It's *the* GUI for newbies on UNIX. I'm a slacker and BSD'er, I use X only for funkyness, but KDE will rock your mother soon.
Re:Open Source for Windows?! Are you nuts?! (Score:1)
On the contrary, I believe OSS on Windows is a good thing because it proves to many Windows users the value of OSS. It's a much smaller "leap-of-faith" to try a free software package than to repartition your hard drive and move to a true Open Source OS.
I think if everyone's goal is really domination of the desktop than you've got to consider that not everyone is going to be as adventurous as the current Linux pioneer community.
The people that get Windows OEM don't necessarily see the value in switching, but if you offer them a better, free alternative, you may convert a few in the long run.
Re:Troll Tech are *OK* (Score:2)
Well, that kind of rules out Qt for me, as I only have NT installed at work, and would like to do some spare time development once in a while. As a matter of fact, having just moved, this is the only computer I have available right now.
And really, I wouldn't want to GPL a project that I'd need to pay $1000 to get started on, given the fact that I'm bound to this platform for now.
Anyhow, I was going to comment on your second comment up there, about allowing Windows users to use cool, free software.
I think, that from a Linux/OpenSource advocacy standpoint, allowing or making OpenSource easier and more available on Microsoft platforms does more good than harm.
The thing most people are worried about when switching from one OS to another, is the availability of applications on the new platform, at least when we're talking about people interested in desktop computing.
Having projects ported from Linux to Windows is IMHO not going to have people getting more attached to their windows platform, it's probably going to make them more ready to switch, because you free them from the attachment to Windows applications.
It's pretty hard to "convert" a windows/mac user, who uses Photoshop every day, by saying things like "But listen, Linux has The Gimp". It would be dead easy to "convert" someone by saying "But listen, Linux also has Photoshop".
But easiest, it would be to "convert" a windows user that actually uses The Gimp on Windows. What's holding him back, right?
By making GPL development using Qt free for Windows too, troll tech wouldn't only get many more developers using their toolkits, they would also benefit the Linux/OpenSource community by making applications developed for Windows (like the one I was about to start. Hell, I'll just go with ncurses and cygwin. Who cares about GUI's, right
Open SW under Windows has some big obstacles... (Score:1)
As far as I know, all the "standard" development
tools under Windows are commercial software
anyway. I always thought one of the great
things about *nix open-source was the availability
of good, free tools (gcc, perl etc.) tools so
that ANY user could use and make changes to that
source code.
And I don't see that with Windows. The last thing
I am is an applications programmer under Windows,
but everybody I know uses VC++/C++ Builder/Delphi/
Powerbuilder/VB to do their work. That $400, not
to mention 800MB of disk space for VC++, is a
pretty big barrier to entry for open source
software running on Windows. Perl is the
exception, but I don't know a lot of major
projects that use perl as the sole language for
development. Besides that, some parts of perl
don't work the same way between different versions
of Windows. Whoops.
What good is source if you can't compile it?
(Don't answer that. I know it's nice to see how
things work). It's good that people can see it,
but since 99% of Windows users don't even have
access to development tools, what difference does
it ultimately make?
-
Sam
my copy of visual studio 6 is still in shrink
wrap
Re:M$-Windows Open Source is *very* important! (Score:1)
The current developers version of The GIMP compiles cleanly on Win32 platforms (using a completely free set of GNU tools) and fully integrates with the Windoof environment (Twain image sources, clipboard, printing). This hasn't hurt the GIMP development so far (as the main porting effort is in porting GTK/GDK).
I'm not sure if GIMP for Windows will help the OpenSource movement, but before the end of this year, we'll have GIMP/Win32 if we like or not...
Re:KDE QT and for profit software (Score:1)
What TrollTech is doing with QT/Free is actually rather admirable. They're "forcing" people to keep their software open otherwise they have to pay the prohibitively expensive $1200 in order to release their application in a closed manner. Gee, that almost sounds like the GPL doesn't it?
Re:Mistaking Commercial for Proprietary (Score:2)
The old Qt license wouldn't let you create commercial apps without paying for it, but the new one is 100% Free Software. This means you can write a commercial app as long as it's Free and/or Open Source.
But if you really, really want to write a proprietary app under Qt, just go buy a proprietary Qt license and have at it. Look carefully at the KDE libraries though, since they're (L)GPL. Same thing goes for the GTK.
NO! Your dumb! (Score:1)
Open Source != OS Advocacy (Score:1)
Fortunately, as DJGPP, Cygwin and other similar tools are being created, it is opening up these doors a bit wider.
Reality being what it is, the Win* world still blows the Linux world away hands down in terms of users. I, for one, would be way happy to be coding for the largest possible audience, especially if I could make everyone happy without going through herculean efforts to do so.
Perpetuating the idea that Linux is free while Windows products cost (especially when the Linux development is the same) is poor, doubly so when we're talking about a library which would only help foster code development.
Re:Windows open source (Score:1)
Although this isn't exactly "Freshmeat" there is a respository for Open Source Windows software. Okay, It's quite small now, but hopefully it'll get better. http://commit.winehq.com/~lynch/OSSW.html [winehq.com]
-BrentRe:Troll Tech are *OK* (Score:1)
Gimp for Windows will help less (porting in the other).
A few good points, but I still think it's nice for Troll Tech to pay those guys to work on free software. I bought the book you mention, BTW. And the $1000+ price tag is nothing for a commercial developer with a serious application to port to windows (which I am not, BTW). The total porting costs to such developers might be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of company time per project.
BTW, you *do* realize that cygwin uses a very similar model to Qt, don't you? Cygwin is a GPLed (*not* LGPLed) library - fine for free software. But Cygnus will also sell you a license to link it with proprietary code. If you fail to purchase such a license, then your app must be free software too.
what's *my* incentive to write free Win/Mac apps? (Score:1)
On the other hand, if I want to sit down and write an open-source application in my spare time, using C or C++, why should I do it for Windows rather than Linux/*BSD? I'd have to invest a lot of time and effort into learning the Win32 API, and that knowledge will become obsolete in three months. The time that I spend fixing Windows-specific bugs will cut into the time I have available for fixing Linux/*BSD-specific bugs. I don't see how experience with Win32 (as opposed to, say, EROS [eros-os.org] or PalmOS) would help me learn things about the general craft of programming that I couldn't learn from experience with Linux/*BSD alone.
It's fine how it is (Score:1)
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Re:Troll Tech are *OK* (Score:1)
If you believe that Linux is superior in the most important ways, that alone should be enough to convince people to switch. One of the barriers to entry for Linux is that there aren't a lot of familiar desktop apps available. Free Qt for Win means Free apps for Win.
One way or another, application parity between Windows and Linux means more people will switch. People don't want to learn a whole new browser, word processor, image manipulator, compiler etc. when they switch languages. If we can't get application parity by having Adobe port Photoshop to Linux, we have to get it by porting The Gimp to Windows. (Oh, look! Someone smart already has!)
I'm a Windows user. I plan on getting myself a Linux box soon. In the meantime, I'm getting familiar with The Gimp. I also use Wordperfect, Navigator and GCC. When I do get Linux, I'll still be able to use familiar programs. That makes it more likely that I WILL switch.
Do you REALLY expect Microsoft to port Office to Linux when Linux people won't port their apps to Windows?
Re:Windows open source (Score:1)
Un*x is good when you need something get done. Win32 could be ehmmm, FUN, but live is too short to use such a bloated thing, when there are much better tools to work with.
Re:Troll Tech are *OK* (Score:1)
If they were simply developing an end-user application, it would be a somewhat different story. If they were making, say, a word processor, I would be perfectly happy having to pay for a windows version. Using their free Unix version wouldn't affect anything else.
But for a software library, it's different. If I were writing a Unix program with a GUI, I would be looking for a toolkit to use, and in this day and age it would have to be a toolkit that is platform independant. Even if I didn't initially intend to release a windows version of the program, there's no telling what may happen down the line. My job could force me to use windows as my primary desktop, and I would want to port it; or the program could interest enough Windows users that it would become worthwhile.
For that reason, I wouldn't even consider using Qt, and probably go for GTK+ instead or some other free toolkit instead, even if Qt has a better set of features. (I don't know if it does -- I haven't looked, and don't intend to with its current licensing).
I would guess that there other software authors like myself who would avoid Qt so as not to base an entire project on a library that would ultimately limit their options. Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution. I assume they took a good look at the market and decided that they could not continue to make money by open-sourcing the entire project. I can't entirely blame them after what happened with Netscape...
Open source under windows (Score:1)
Since then, many new win-windowmanagers saw light, some of them GPL.
At that point, though it was not the first GPL software for windows, it was one of the first windows-only softwares GPL'ed.
The point is, a new development team took back the code, removed its high dependance over C++ Builder, set up a CVS tree and some dev mailing lists, and all seems to run smoothly (last stable version was out about a week ago http://floach.pimpin.net/).
During this period, there were some people willing to speed up things about Win GPL... i can remember some people tried to get attention from the slashdot community and try to get some support from the *nix GPL world. Unfortunately, though many people welcomed the effort, many others were close-minded and were just looking at us as bugs...
GPL under Windows DOES work, but *nix GPL defenders should not consider that GPL is only good for *nix plateforms.
At first i though it was a question of code openness, but for MOST people, it is definitly a question of windows vs *nix.
lone.
Employers pay for Win32. Hackers pay open source (Score:1)
At home you're using Linux, trying to optimize expenses and code the best software you can. You'll want everything to be free because Linux software you must buy yourself with no clients to foot the bill.
Re:need more Linux software on Windows (Score:1)
I really don't see the problem with the current QPL license. If you are only interested in Free software, you get it for free. But if you want to develop commercially and closed, you have that option too.
With GPL,the second option is *not* there.
Re:Windows? (Score:1)
Please don't put me in a "camp" because I do Windows development. I don't feel I live in a world of greed and cutthroat shareware/commercial software.
It looks to me like you belong in a "camp" of irrational OS bigotry. Take a few valiums and remove the raw meat from your diet.
Re:Java? (Score:1)
Not to disagree with you, but I was referring to Java as a platform, not an implementation. The virtual machine, language, and API specs are not "open source" in the sense that they may be freely and indiscriminately modified (as Microsoft found out in court), but they can be freely implemented.
As I mentioned in one of the instant messager threads last week, I'm a much bigger fan of open standards than of open source. Reimplementing something that's closed source but open standards may be drudge work (I don't see you helping out with the Lesstif coding effort), but I do believe that it's a very worthwhile freedom to have, and much more worth defending than open source.
-- Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
If Troll really wants to become a world power... (Score:1)
This is not to somehow imply that Windows with Qt is better than Linxu (bleh). It's just a reality check that many people, like myself, are confined to Windows by the powers that be, for one reason or another. Not to mention the fact that if I want to create some software for my friends/relatives I'm not about to start signing my life over to them to support Linux on their machines when they are perfectly happy in the M$ setup [for now]. I'd love to write software, but I am definitely not paying for MFC...definitely not an elegant library there.
Pfft, Windows Source (Score:1)
Re:GTK+ (Score:1)
Apache for Windows not ready for prime time (Score:1)
Apache for Win32 DOES make an excellent replacement for MS Personal Web Server, for use in development. PWS and the associated MTS used to hang up with my laptop's management software and/or virus scanning software; Apache just runs fine on its own without side effects.
While there are few real open source programs out there for Win32, any longtime Delphi or VB programmers will tell you there are plenty of open source components written in such languages.
Some have lamented the lack of free development tools for Windows. To say there are none is too broad a statement. You have Perl/Tk, Perl::GUI, and Java (not open source, but free).
Qt for Windows is OpenSource, just not free (Score:1)
I'm not sure why they don't release a free one under windows, it woulkd be really handy. But I think we need to take a step back and look at the facts. Qt under windows _is_ open source.
Re:Open Source for Windows isn't the issue (Score:1)
http://www.cygnus.com/
Re:Troll Tech are *OK* (Score:1)
I'm a big fan of good software, commercial or free.
Thing is, Gimp is already ported to Windows, and as a free alternative to Photoshop, it goes a long way, IMHO it annihilates Paint Shop Pro and crap like that. Stability is of course an issue, but lots of good things will happen with the porting of GTK+ to windows (currently using MSVC++, but soon to also arrive in a cygwin incarnation).
I don't like windows more than the next guy, I just feel that any effort to make cross platform more available is an effort to promote Linux. If you have the same applications on your platforms, you'll choose OS based on the quality of the OS. Today, most people using windows, use it because of availability of applications.
If people use PHP with an Apache http server on Windows NT, they're bound to wake up and smell the Cherry Coke one day. There's no reason why they should be running NT at all. That's thanks to people giving Windows users alternatives to IIS and ASP, for instance.
I agree that $1000+ isn't very much of a price tag for serious, commercial software projects. It doesn't justify not having the option to use Qt for OpenSource projects on Windows, IMO.
Your last paragraph I don't understand, however. Cygwin can be used freely for making free, opensource products, Qt cannot. What are you getting at? I more than willing to pay the price if I ever decide on using Qt for a commercial product, as am I with the cygnus products.
I admit that I'm pleased with some companies releasing their products for free for Linux while they have commercial counterparts for other OSes. That benefits the Linux community. "Crippling" Qt by narrowing the fields where it can be used for creating free software, however, isn't what I usually consider a good idea.
Thanks to cygnus, BTW, for making the hell of being stuck in Win NT all day a little less. You guys are sweet.
Re:Open Source for Windows isn't the issue (Score:1)
Please tell this to RedHat. They are doing it right. RedHat doesn't slave away creating huge monstrous projects then just releasing them for free! They take what is out there, add value and support, and sell the added value and support. True, they also contribute code, but this is only part of their overall strategy. I read through the prospectus for Red Hat's IPO. Perusing their financial statements certainly lends credence to my statement at top. While RedHat was in the (small) business of burning CDs with a specific Linux distribution on them and selling them through book stores and retail software channels, they probably stayed in the black. But I suspect it will be a long time (if ever) before they see profits again.
They're entering into a commodity business that has very slim margins, especially when smaller companies can simply take the RedHat distribution and redistribute it. Any serious innovations that RedHat makes (or invests in) will be yet another reason for them to have to figure out a way to recover the cost. Pressing CDs isn't the way. Getting into the body shop business of providing tech support isn't the way either.
I'm not anti-Red Hat by any measure. I think what they've accomplished is commendable. But I also think the jury is still out on whether their business model can survive, much less flourish with low-overhead competition that can offer a similar product with zero overhead. Red Hat has benefitted from some amazing timing, positive press, and a lot of anti-Microsoft sentiment. Just like Netscape....
Negative perceptions? Where? (Score:1)
Honestly, don't most people who want OSS for Windows want it to lead people away from Windows? Seems to me the fact that they are doing any open source at all gives them the marketting win they were looking for. And as an added bonus, they don't really have to support the free version because the source is right there, and you can bloody well fix it yourself.
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotected sex.
EH?! (Score:1)
> visa-versa.
I just love running multiple widget sets concurently though, don't you? All that wonderful memory usage... Why won't everyone just use GTK+ ? It's completely GPL'd on all platforms. Just use it ok?
all the eggs are in one basket (Score:1)
Re:Perhaps I am irrational (Score:1)
Screw Windows.
Re:Open Source for Windows?! Are you nuts?! (Score:1)
Why? There are more professional developers on windows. Why MFC? It's not very expensive to use, is it? (In terms of shelling out cash.)
If Qt had a more liberal license on Windows, maybe it would be used instead. That would have made it easy to port to Linux in the future. I don't imagine porting MFC apps is very straight forward.
Another thing, I don't think I've ever met a person who bought Windows. Well, once, but he was a moron. Obviosly, most people get their computer with Windows preloaded, without ever knowing that there is an alternative.
Speaking of Troll Tech sucking MS developer market dry, I don't know, man. I don't think I've ever used a Qt application for Windows, and to be honest; if this is the path Troll Tech is choosing I don't think I ever will.
I've earlier stated that I believe Open Source software for Windows will benefit the Linux community because availability of software on more platforms will make it more a matter of choosing the best OS, not the OS that has a certain application that you just _need_ to run.
Troll Tech freeing Qt for Open Source Windows development would benefit all Open Source development, and thus the Linux community.
Open Source has a problem on Windows (Score:3)
There is one serious practical problem with Open Source on Windows.
What do you use to compile it?
Using Microsoft tools is problematic, as they don't support familiar makefiles, they change often and there are a number of grungy places that require even more #ifdefs than you would have with Unix-like systems.
Also, I think that Open Source is not advanced by requiring a pricey language platform purchase before you can get started. Open Source, in my observation, has greatly benefitted because people with few resources can really contribute, and contribute right away.
There is cygwin [cygnus.com], but it's not entirely mature. Also, there is the issue of cygwin.dll licensing [cygnus.com]. I personally feel that releasing a library under GPL and selling another licensed version of the same library is against the spirit of Open Source. It is explicitly granting a license to one group of users that another group does not hold. This license issue probably frightens away a lot of potential workers to improving cygwin. Has RMS ever weighed in on this issue?
There is a call [cygnus.com] for people to help with the cygwin project, currently. If the tools were really mature, the split licensing wouldn't bother me so much as I believe that a ton of Linux software would be ported to Windows if cygwin could really do it. One really great benefit to this is that people would upgrade more often from Windows to Linux when they compared their poorly performing Open Source code running on Windows/cygwin to what they could be doing on Linux.
It might help if a commercial Linux distro, or perhaps a Power Tools CD, included the full cygwin package, complete with all the known ported releases of Open Source software. You could cross develop cygwin on Linux with a Windows target. Such a thing might be used to spread GPL software through the Windows community more. A good free X-Server might be handy here too.
Re:GTK+ (Score:1)
Actually, RMS "LGPL is good to increase acceptance of the GNU OS by allowing commercial software to link with core GNU librarys - Non core librarys should be GPL, to promote the usage of the GPL".
In a word... (Score:2)
Market Segmentation (Score:1)
However, the point that probably hasn't escaped most people is that it is very hard becoming a large successful application specialist on the Windows platform as a certain comapany's desire for maximum profits has a tactic of embracing markets initially created by others. In an OpenSource environment, different business rules apply and it would be foolish of people to expect the ideals of OpenSource will translate unchanged into a CloseSource Environment.
LL
Re:What about MacOS? (Score:1)
Here's about MacOS :) (Score:2)
Re:Open Source for Windows isn't the issue (Score:2)
Hmmm... most subsonic airfoils have actually larger surface area on the bottom side of the airfoil. The reason airfoils produce lift is because of the difference in momentum between the two flows (top vs. bottom), mainly caused by varying airfoil curvature. And this only holds for certain speed regions and dimensions (Mach and Reynolds numbers). This explanation is not in any way a product of "new methods" or models. It's taught in any aerospace school worth its tuition --and I sincerely hope these two posters aren't aeronautical engineers...
Also, CFD (computational fluid dynamics) is based on existing physical models of fluid mechanics, it doesn't conjure them up from silicon.
BTW, to the previous poster: the stuff about bumblebees is the second most often-told myth in aerodynamics (the first being that lift is produced because air has to travel over a longer distance on the top surface --basically, what the above post is saying). Bumblebee flight defies aerodynamic explanation for regions of Reynolds numbers (i.e. rougly, density and length) that airplanes fly in, not bees.
Please refrain from spreading FUD about aerodynamicists
Re:Open Source for Windows isn't the issue (Score:1)
(just making an unjustified claim here for the humor value - not asserting anything).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Qt on Windows, and OSS (Score:1)
1. TrollTech will increase their revenues.
2. Their increase in revenues will translate into Qt library innovations for the Open Source community.
3. Educating folks who choose to implement software solutions based on Microsoft technology in pay-for-use; in lieu of the day when Microsoft license fees are charged annually.
Re:GTK+ (Score:1)
Re:Open Source != OS Advocacy (Score:1)
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
Thoughts on OpenSource for Windows (Score:1)
I read above somebody make the comment that if the tools are not free, what difference does it make if the source is? I mean, if it costs me $100+ just to compile the stuff, then forget it.
This to me is the essence of the stranglehold MS has over that market. I can live with paying for the OS (don't flame me, but it just doesn't bother me.... as long as it works) but I should not have to pay to write software. Think about it, MS makes everyone pay for their OS, pay for the tools to develop more apps for their OS, so that more people will buy it. so that more people will develop for it, thus selling them more tools... it's a viscious (sp) cycle. I think that what would start to make a big difference to this would be if decent, free tools were available for Windows, which allow aspiring and experienced programmers alike to write source portable apps.
Think of it, if you could write an app which used GTK+, and have that program source compatible with Windows, would that not rock? For one it would kill Java (which I think is dead with the rise of OSS anyhow.. different story) and it would allow platform agnostism (is that a word?) for programmers.
Personally, I would think this great, since I write Windows apps at work under MFC, and at home I tinker with GTK+, QT, and other *nix based tools and libraries, and would prefer to develop there.
Like it or not, Windows exists, and MS is now plotting directly against Linux/OSS, and MS will win unless the Linux community starts to actively attempt to undermine MS' platform. Take the battle to their own ground. If MS thrives on closed libraries and technologies, start making sure people write to open ones, especially for their windows apps. Everything under windows which MS cannot control is one more thing which lossens their hold on the market.
This is becomming a rant, but I think a lot of the Linux "snobs" need to wake up and smell the stench coming in through the Window, becuase it's time we all work together to freshen the air. (If that was not a well crafted piece of CHEESE I don't know what is).
--------------------
five fingers make a fist
amalgamate and resist
avail (cldale@uwaterloo.ca)
Re:Troll Tech are *OK* (Score:1)
> are you getting at?
I didn't say the models were the same - I said they were similar. I just mean that Cygnus makes money from closed licenses on software which they also openly license, that's all. The details do differ.
> Thanks to cygnus, BTW, for making the hell of being stuck in Win NT all day a little less. You guys are sweet.
Amen, brother. I love cygwin too.
Re:Windows? (Score:1)
Re:GTK for W95 (Score:1)
Chilli
Open source == portable (Score:1)
Non-portable code is a kludge - temporarily acceptable, but a Bad Thing in the long run.
Sure, Troll Tech has the right to choose whatever license they like for their product, but they have to live with the consequences of their choice. And at the moment that means that an application written in GTK+ is easier to port than one written in Qt - with all the consequences..
Chilli
Well fix it then! (Score:1)
Troll Tech is WRONG! (Score:2)
We want to drive the application availability situation to the advantage of Linux, etc. people!
You're hampering interoperability, limiting your program's customer base, and excluding a pool of talented programmers, all for the sake of being politically correct. Making the source available only to the "right" OS is just as bad as not making the source available at all.
To paraphrase Planet of the Apes, it appears some operating systems are more equal than others.
Keith Russell
OS != Religion
Re:Bitching at Troll Tech (Score:2)
People will still bitch about it. As long as a proprietary version exists, they'll fight against the horrible injustice of it all.
And yes, I have read the GPL/LGPL. And I've also read RMS's opinion that the LGPL shouldn't be used anymore.
You've piqued my curiosity (Score:2)
In a prior life (before anti-trust attorney and professorof economics), my B.S. was in physics, and aerodynamic engineering was pretty much the only program I considered other than law . . .