simo.sorce@tiscalinet.it said:
Solution: push for open standards, or better, push for free (as in freedom) data formats for your data.
I agree with this, though I don't understand why that is linked to the OS.
For me to move to something else from MS Word I still need to be able to convert from/to the ubiquitous MS Word format and retain the information (including tables, headings, Graphics). That is not yet possible - And yes, I would prefer working with LaTeX, but I haven't been able to convince my co-workers or our business partners.
I am soon the last one in my company to use Linux. The others moved from Linux to Windows, because they need to work on those darn documents in the format almost everyone else works on.
I can run MS Word only on MS Windows because of Bill Gates closed policy. I can run Octave only on Linux because of RMS's closed policy?
I thought freedom prevails because of its openness.
- Josef
On Wednesday 31 October 2001 5:40 pm, you wrote:
Solution: push for open standards, or better, push for free (as in freedom) data formats for your data.
I agree with this, though I don't understand why that is linked to the OS.
I can think of one germaine reason; that's resources.
For every GNU project that ports to Windows (for example) as standard, that means that the source tree & builds all have to keep the Windows ports up to date. That could be a simple as some #ifdef WIN32 .... #ifdef GNU .. etc., but is likely to be a lot harder. We would see the size of the source code rise, would need Win32 bulid systems to test, would need Win32 binary releases, etc. In short, you expend a lot of effort.
All the money I've ever given to FSF has been on the understanding that I'm supporting Free software - I would not be particularly impressed to find the FSF spending its resources on supporting non-Free software.
Conclusion: I don't mind seeing Free software work on non-Free platforms, but we shouldn't be expending energy doing that. If you look at the debian-hurd mailing list archive, you'll see a recent subject (dated 16th Oct) entitled "Debian GNU/HURD/Windows?" - a similar topic, and a similar conclusion.
Cheers, Alex.
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:34:10 +0000, Alex Hudson said:
For every GNU project that ports to Windows (for example) as standard, that means that the source tree & builds all have to keep the Windows ports up to date. That could be a simple as some #ifdef WIN32 .... #ifdef GNU .. etc.,
It is not that hard in all cases. For example the GnuPG port to Windows is not actually a port but 2 extra files (Entropy gatherer and some utility functions). With autoconf and a cross-compiler it is really easy.
The only advantage I can see in porting a thing to Windows is that it is far easier to get a contract on doing software for Windows than for GNU or any Unix system. If you plan early you can get money for writing Windows software and you are actually improving generic GNU programs because you can cross-develop the thing.
I really hope that this situation will change so that we can proudly say "sorry, I don't develop for a proprietary system".
Conclusion: I don't mind seeing Free software work on non-Free platforms, but we shouldn't be expending energy doing that. If you look at the debian-hurd
Agreed. Actually I regularly refuse to do ports or bug fixes for Windows stuff unless there is an advantage for Free Software, which may either be an improved Free Software or earning money to continue to develop FS.
Ciao,
Werner
yOn Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Werner Koch wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:34:10 +0000, Alex Hudson said:
For every GNU project that ports to Windows (for example) as standard, that means that the source tree & builds all have to keep the Windows ports up to date. That could be a simple as some #ifdef WIN32 .... #ifdef GNU .. etc.,
It is not that hard in all cases. For example the GnuPG port to Windows is not actually a port but 2 extra files (Entropy gatherer and some utility functions). With autoconf and a cross-compiler it is really easy.
Yes.
The only advantage I can see in porting a thing to Windows is that it is far easier to get a contract on doing software for Windows than for GNU or any Unix system. If you plan early you can get money for writing Windows software and you are actually improving generic GNU programs because you can cross-develop the thing.
I really hope that this situation will change so that we can proudly say "sorry, I don't develop for a proprietary system".
Me too. But it's better for security for having source code availability also on proprietary operating system.
For example, WINPT (http://www.winpt.org), the front end WIN32 for the wonderful piece of software from Werner. That could extent free software adoption more easily. A lot of time, "Marketing/Management" peoples think by making small step for software adoption. (Proprietary software/Proprietary OS -> Free Software/Proprietary OS -> Free Software/Free OS)
I have another example that I meet often in the financial sector. We have a small company doing security and free software. The adpotion of your product is easier with people that have Nokia IPSO firewall. Let me explain, IPSO is an operating system build from FreeBSD (yes, they took the code and made a proprietary Operating System). But when, you say to the people you are allready using Free Software, they say not that's not true... (They ask the technical guys : "Yes is based on FreeBSD and the manual include the GPL (for readline lib 8-)) and BSDv1 license)
So my deduction about that is :
We should use the marketing way (without losing your mind about Freedom for everybody) for the management/marketing/... :
"Small step for implementing free software with solutions" (that's the vision to give to "marketing people")
"World domination of free software and fast !" (that's our real objective).
I suspect it's the same way for Microsoft. (but not with free software 8-))
adulau
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 06:40:53PM +0100, Josef Dalcolmo wrote:
I can run MS Word only on MS Windows because of Bill Gates closed policy.
... and on windows, I did not try it with MS Word, but there is a well - working emulator basiliskII, that allows you to run macos on pcs.
I can run Octave only on Linux because of RMS's closed policy?
I thought freedom prevails because of its openness.
ACK.
Furthermore, the availability of open source programs for windows can help to migrate to linux. IMHO it is much easier to replace programs step by step than to replace everything at once. When all the important applications are replaced by free ones, you can easily change to linux.
Another possibility would be "windows on linux": you can use wine to emulate Windows, or even worse use a real Windows inside your linux system. This solution would be very slow, perhaps also unstable. People would possibly think of linux as an slow an unstable operating system.