According to the Free Software Foundation, free software includes “the freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits… Access to the source code is a precondition for this.” 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.
Recently, Microsoft sent me an evaluation edition of their new Windows Server 2003. I had an NTFS partition on my computer with Windows XP installed, but it rarely saw any action. Knowing that I wouldn’t miss it, I blew it away and took a test drive of Windows Server 2003. That was about a month ago, and I’m using it now to write this.
Now, this is not a review of Windows Server 2003 or even an attempt to discuss it. However, installing and using has clarified some feelings, in my mind, about the success and shortcomings of open source software. As a grateful user of download editions of Linux, desktop environments like KDE and Gnome, and applications like gaim, OpenOffice.org, and Mozilla Firebird, I rely heavily upon free software for my day to day work. I use Apache http Server and script with PHP and write some Perl. I am no stranger to the quality of individual open source products, and I owe a debt of gratitude to developers around the world.
That said, booting up into Windows for the first time in a long time was surprisingly joyful. The graphics and feel of the system were tight and coordinated, the look and feel was sleek. Despite the fact that it’s supposed to be a server OS (which is a whole separate issue), it felt like a single, integrated system. Installing Office 2003 for the very first time was simple enough — as expected, clicking the setup.exe file installed the necessary components and I knew exactly where to find them, having installed a previous version before. Despite the fact that this was supposed to be a “trial run,” I had my server configured as a web server, a file server, a print server, and my primary desktop machine within an hour or so.
This is what got me thinking – “Choice is good.” Some debate the marketability of choice — it confuses new users, it makes learning much more complex, it makes each computer different enough so that you must, to some extent, relearn what you can and can’t do on each box. But one downfall of the amount choice is that it makes Linux, in this particular case, feel disjointed. Some programs feel meshed and others feel semi-developed. Some programs are themeable, while others maintain a single look. A public with extreme expectations refuses to accept distributions that strip out too much choice, and therefore, we end up with some sort of OS pudding, with each bite tasting just a little different than the rest. To top it off, when a commercial company, like Red Hat, takes a shot at solving this problem, the community backlash can best be described as merciless.
But that’s all candy. A system needn’t be visually consistent to be functional and enjoyable to use. But, in my opinion, it should at least be attractive. There’s debate as to whether or not what’s best wins — the case has been made a thousand times, “If quality were the sole determinant, Mac would win hands down.” But regardless of the level of importance of looks, I think we can all agree that quality is important. I’ve used many Linux distros, and I’ve consistently found that each handles the same tasks different ways, sometimes with mixed results. Browsing Windows domains, for example, is often unique to the distribution. Each distro has a recommended way to do so best – Xandros mount NFS and domain shares automatically, Red Hat recommends uses the Nautilus command smb://, and then there are dozens of after-market add-on applicatons. I’ve tried many of them with varying success, some are better then others, some are unstable on certain distributions, some are generally functional but not very pretty.
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.
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. We, as techies, too often overestimate the priorities of the home user. We insist that security is an issue, when it’s usually not. Many people set their computer to log in automatically or use blank passwords. We believe speed is more important than eye candy, but the average user doesn’t always agree. Developers aren’t excited by the mundane, but these details must be painstakingly covered to ensure the system “feels” right. Many companies in the “Linux business” know this; they are doing their best to make Linux usable, and many of the best improvements, like XFM and Click-N-Run, are non-GPL programs! Let’s face it, if the source to these programs were publicly available, they’d be in many distributions within a few months.
When I move the mouse around in Linux – it feels a little like it plays catch up with me. When I click on objects, I feel like the system has to figure out what I meant to select. It’s a strange sensation that I have a very hard time putting into words. This as a likely limitation of Xfree86’s lack of the proper threading support. As a member of the IT community, I understand the complexity of this issue. As a user, I don’t care. A company like Apple or Microsoft has the resources to pay developers to work out whatever problems they decide need fixing. The open source community relies largely on developers working for free on what suits them in their free time. We can’t decide if we should be improving X, or ditching it in favor the replacements, most of which have been in development for years.
There are some applications out there that are part of what I consider a new generation of Linux apps that are top notch – K3B for cd burning, Ximian’s Evolution PIM, and the entire Mandrake Control Center, to name a few. While open source developers sometimes produce great products, with free software, developers can (and often do) skip over features that aren’t important to them personally. In fairness, that is not a bad thing – a developer should not be required to write something, for free, that they do not need. But an end user doesn’t want to use an application that doesn’t completely suit their needs. We’re still missing even passable counterparts for Photoshop, Access, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, and Front Page. And there’s a good reason.
These products are impossibly large scale projects, but projects that a corporate interest would easily be able to accomplish, if it weren’t for a community so dead set in their intolerance of non-free software. Adobe, Macromedia, and other large software companies know the audience – they know Linux users don’t pay for software. We collectively sing the mantra of free software only, so we have to wait. We wait for someone somewhere to start a sourceforge project, recruit a team, decide on a programming language, and then begin to code. Then we wait for the forks – the guys who port a Qt app to GTK or create a Java version. We wait for it to mature. We report on our various successes. And then we download endless betas waiting for the 1.0 milestone. And when we implement it, there’s no support. At best, there’s a message board that helps you find out why you can’t compile the app or why the rpm doesn’t work on your distribution or how come the author’s didn’t include feature X.
It’s important to note that the FSF also states “Free software does not mean non-commercial. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.” The problem is that some companies and their developers need to be compensated for their time in order to make the manufacturing their product worthwhile for them, and that often means withholding source code, restricting redistribution, and forbidding decompiling, which disqualifies the product as free software.
My intent here is not be presumptuous or didactic, but rather to suggest that we all revisit the notion of free software solving all problems. One of the problems we face is legitimitizing Linux. I believe that Linux’s eventual desktop success relies upon corporate and commercial interest. I dream of enterprise software makers catering to the Linux desktop and hardware manufacturers including Linux drivers on their companion CDs. Free software has its place, but not everything should be free. Sometimes, when developers have a quality product, they don’t want to give away their hard work for free. It’s not unreasonable to pay for goods and services, and I don’t believe that software should be an exception. If Linux users would concede that non-free software can fill in their swiss-cheese application market, perhaps the Linux software landscape wouldn’t be so hit-or-miss.
—
Adam Scheinberg is a regular contributor to OSNews.com. He works as network administrator in Orlando, FL. He runs Linux and Windows at home.
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.
Use proprietary system but at the same time put on some handcuffs.
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.
Most people use a web browser, and on Linux you can choose between at least 3 of them.
>>> 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.
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.
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.
Spyware, now we like being able to recomple our kernel?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
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.
On the other hand, if you are tied up on MS Office than maybe you don’t care.
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.
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.
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.
>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!
For all who want to see my REAL comment..
http://www.osnews.com/moderation.php?news_id=3618
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!!!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Giving them the source with restrictions? Not possible in the GPL… they’d have to use another license.
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.
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*
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
if you know german read the following article from “Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/technologie/0,1518,249649,00.html
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
nothing wrong with free software or proprietary software. The only thing which is a huge problem is GPL licensed software…
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
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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&rows=30
Is it the same Adam Scheinberg? Within a month Adam seems to have changed his tune.
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.
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).
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)