Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No Respect for Windows Open Source

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the open-source-is-as-open-source-does dept.

Software 551

man_of_mr_e writes "Shaun Walker, one of the founding developers of the DotNetNuke Portal/CMS has written an interesting piece about Open Source software on the Windows platform. "It's hard being an open source project on the Microsoft platform. Because no matter how hard you try to exemplify true open source ideals, you will not get any respect from the non-Microsoft community." He also says "There are Open Source zealots who believe that unless an application is part of a stack which includes 100% Open Source services and components, that it can not claim to be Open Source. [...] But does this "stack" argument actually make any sense?""

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Windows (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928021)

and yet most of them run Windows.

A lot like Star Trek... (2, Insightful)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928031)

his reminds me of that Star Trek Voyager episode a friend of mine watched and told me about because I'd never watch that. The Voyager was chasing down some other Starfleet ship that had modded there ship by using direct port alien injection. They were squishing Martians or something to make warp 1000 to get back to Earth. So this story is exactly like that; the DNN team are essesntially doing a good thing (like the alien mashers getting their people home), but in a bad way (helping the evil company by providing it with free apps that promote their product).

Personally, I don't trust them. In this case, I'd encourage them to go closed source. Nobody should be promoting the use of VBScript or whatever that crappy Basic derivitive is that people use to write ASP (I've converted a lot of this garbage to PHP/Perl, and everything I've seen written using ASP has been absolutely horrific - the worst, least optimised crap I've ever seen - hell I could do better way back when I used to sit in my high-chair bashing away on my toy learning computer - last week it was. Now I think of it, maybe this is why IIS seems slow and wobbly; it's burdened with coping with the worst "Programmers" on Earth.

Re:A lot like Star Trek... (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928064)

In view of that, it is then amazing that IIS is capable of parsing/rendering the scripts at all. I'd say this is a kudos for MS.

Re:A lot like Star Trek... (2, Informative)

fyrie (604735) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928068)

Nobody should be promoting the use of VBScript or whatever that crappy Basic derivitive is that people use to write ASP

It's written in VB.NET, hence the name DotNetNuke.

Re:A lot like Star Trek... (3, Funny)

rwven (663186) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928074)

oh come on... If i wrote some open source app for windows it's not like i have some secret mission to promote Microsoft. Keeping it open source just means that you can take my source-code and port it to LINUX, thus furthering your "secret mission" of linux domination. :-P

Re:A lot like Star Trek... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928169)

Visual Basic and classic ASP's architecture promote poor coding. You will see better code in modern C# ASP.NET applications with codebehind and what-not.

Re:A lot like Star Trek... (2, Insightful)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928182)

I've seen some pretty crappy PHP. Actually, the one I'm trying to fix right now is so bad as to lead me to believe that it was origionally written as a demonstration of insecure coding practices.

Re:A lot like Star Trek... (1, Offtopic)

badriram (699489) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928205)

1) They use ASP.NET with VB.Net, which is Object Oriented, and any day for me a better environment to develop web apps than php or perl (ya so burn me). I do not know about you PHP and ASP 3.0 (vbscript or javascript) both lend themselves to bad code, because they are at heart scripting languages. Not to say people cannot develop clean applications on them
2) IIS 6 does not have any remote vulnerabilites in its default install. It has been out for two years. Thus if you compare IIS 6 to Apache 2, IIS is far more secure than apache. IIS 6 Application management far outstrips what apache currently has.

In summation, if you dont know what you are talking about, either learn, or quit spreading mis information

Lets be serious here... (3, Funny)

danielk1982 (868580) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928216)

...reminds me of that Star Trek Voyager episode a friend of mine watched and told me about because I'd never watch that. The Voyager was chasing down...

We're all geeks here, no need to deny it.

Re:A lot like Star Trek... (5, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928248)

Nobody should be promoting the use of VBScript or whatever that crappy Basic derivitive is that people use to write ASP

ASP is a language-independent framework. While VBScript is popular, there are two languages shipped by default, JScript being the other. You can also install other components to allow you to use other languages, such as ActiveState's PerlScript. In this particular case, it's VB.NET, which (I believe) is substantially better than traditional ASP VBScript.

I've converted a lot of this garbage to PHP/Perl, and everything I've seen written using ASP has been absolutely horrific - the worst, least optimised crap I've ever seen

With all due respect, that particular complaint doesn't mean much when you are converting it to Perl and PHP, seeing as that's the way a good portion of the rest of the world feels about those languages too.

Open source is... (5, Insightful)

Sinryc (834433) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928035)

Open source is open source, no matter what platform. Just because you use Windows does not mean that you beleive that everything should be DRMed or closed. If you write something open souce, you know what, thats good enough for me.

Re:Open source is... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928066)

Open source is open source, no matter what platform. Just because you use Windows does not mean that you beleive that everything should be DRMed or closed. If you write something open souce, you know what, thats good enough for me.

The problem arises when a particular free, open source app relies on a proprietary library. Then in order to modify/compile the source, you need the proprietary lib (which costs money and is usually not modifiable), thus negating the "free and open" part of the situation.

Re:Open source is... (4, Insightful)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928228)

That's why we have different Open Source licenses. There's the GPL, LGPL, BSD, etc.

Each is tailored to a different situation. And let's not get into a debate about Open Source vs. Free Software. Not again. Please. For the curious, read this [wikipedia.org] and this [gnu.org], instead. Or just do a search for open source vs free software [google.com].

Not true (5, Insightful)

gregbains (890793) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928039)

Considering still 90% of people, inc me, use a Windows environment, having your software work on it is not a bad idea, unless you want to cut 90% of your market off without even trying. Get people onto free open source software and they may try your OS. I wouldn't have tried Linux if I hadn't tried OSS such as Firefox/OO, yes it's silly but I didn't know about it before them.

Re:Not true (1)

user317 (656027) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928184)

the foundation of any open source project is the community that develops/uses/tests it. windows just doesnt foster that community, it doesnt attract people who want to tinker and debug and read manpages and go on irc at 2am to talk to developers in broken english across the world. so when you develop for windows, you pretty much exclude all the people who could possibly become fanatical about your work.

Re:Not true (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928211)

True, and I respect anyone who releases something useful as open source for general usage. However, as a personal ideal, I try to have my programs be as compatible as possible, and that's another reason why I use something like PHP, which can run on Windows, Linux, and practically anything else. Honestly, the reason they use ASP is probably because the person who started the project specialized in ASP and needed to scratch an itch (i.e. making a better CRM).

Re:Not true (3, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928336)

It would seem that this is what this article is really about, playing the word association game, windows and open source, asp.net and firefox/open office. Of course those bits of code are open source but it requires proprietary closed source code to write and run (you can only use it if you keep paying to do so).

Microsoft is uncool and trying to associate it with that which is cool linux,open office,firefox and thunderbird etc. is pointless excersize in marketing. Getting the community to write code for it for free to promote it's products is history (microsoft loves the BSD licence, you do the work so it can sell it back to you)

On the contrary (4, Insightful)

rwven (663186) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928041)

I hold more respect for people willing to produce open source products for windows. Mainly because of the people this article is written about. I think there's some sort of irony to giving away something so open on top of a platform that stands very much for closed. Maybe that's just me though. I don't see a lot of people griping when their Closed-Source ATI linux driver keeps their video card running on their "open source" OS...

Re:On the contrary (4, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928183)

I don't see a lot of people griping when their Closed-Source ATI linux driver keeps their video card running on their "open source" OS...

That's because in reality, there aren't actually many people like that. Sure, you'll find the occasional flameboy on Slashdot (although Slashdot's population in general is better than its reputation), and of course you'll also have zealots like Theo de Raadt (who, while probably a genius as far as the technical side of things is concerned, unfortunately still can be quite the flameboy), but for the most part, most developers *and* most users are pretty reasonable and will respect your choices and opinions even if they don't share them.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the more reasonable developers are busy coding instead of making a fuss all the time, but I also think that people generally aren't given as much credit as they deserve. Every village has village idiots, even the global village, but you shouldn't judge the entire population based on them, and neither should you assume that the majority of the village's inhabitants are village idiots - because they aren't.

Re:On the contrary (1)

someone300 (891284) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928189)

I agree. Open source stuff on a closed source platform is a little bit ironic, but is still respectable, but it's quite irritating when you need VisualStudio to compile the code.

However, I do wish the ATI fglrx driver was open... I had an issue with disabling the fastwrite (because my motherboard has broken support for it and will crash the OS), and just had to go back to using the standard "radeon" driver because no matter how much I tried to convince the driver, it wouldn't disable fastwrite. No idea why and there's nothing more I can do...

If it was opensource, I could take a look at the source or modify it to work, being limited only by time. It's not like it provides a significant advantage to their competitors if they release an opensource driver. That other r300 dri thing is supposed to be in the next X.org though...

Ah well. I should probably stop complaining and start contributing to the opensource community more, shouldn't I ;)

Re:On the contrary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928194)

Obviously you haven't been reading the ATI on Linux forums at www.rage3d.com.

Re:On the contrary (4, Interesting)

The_Dougster (308194) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928217)

I personally use almost 100% open source stuff on my windows machines, but thats because of the following:

  • I'm already a long time Linux user
  • For me, its a productivity boost to use familiar apps
  • I'm not trying to convince somebody else to use it.
  • I'd rather spend my extra money on other things.

I routinely install Cygwin, OpenOffice, Dia, Python, Ghostscript, GIMP, and several other lesser apps on my own personal windows machines. Aside from games and CAD, I can get a pretty complete system using free software.

It is true though that for some unknown reason, corporate IT people won't even consider an open source app most of the time. Why businesses continue to hire these wastrels is beyond me though. Companies will throw millions of dollars into crappy proprietary software, then cut jobs when the red ink starts appearing.

Re:On the contrary (0)

Krach42 (227798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928296)

The issue TFA has is not that their project is designed to run on Windows, but rather that it's designed to run under ASP.NET, which almost entirely eliminates any hope to get it running on any architecture other than Windows.

Again, PearPC runs in Windows, and the majority of people that use it run it in Windows. Why don't we get any complaints about not being "true open source"? Because you can compile PearPC to run on a number of architectures, and it's not built upon a proprietary tool that is non-free to obtain.

Open Source Software is a good idea, and it's a solid way to develop programs, and I applaud the guys in TFA for making their source code available, but fundamentally, it's built upon a toolset and architecture that make it inherantly non-free.

Same for the opposite. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928042)

Why is this a surprise? Devlopers of closed-source software on Linux get a similar lack of respect (oracle excepted)

Re:Same for the opposite. (1)

spectre_240sx (720999) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928314)

People find all sorts of ways to nitpick. Actually, listening to the latest (I think) diggnation podcast Kevin and Alex were talking about how it's wrong in their opinions to sell an open source product. Personally, I think that's a bunch of crap. If you're able to sell something that's freely available in a different form elsewhere, you must have made enough of a difference to make it worth buying.

In the end, just remember you're doing what you can to help the community. If some people want to spit in your face, fine; they aren't going to be benefiting from the work you put out anyway. Another thing to remember is, for some reason, people tend to be most vocal when they're dissatisfied with something. There are probably 20 people who have been happy to every person that complains.

Please feel sorry for the poor Windows developers. (1)

Hafren (884907) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928045)

I'm a Windows developer because it pays the bills. Imagine if you did it by choice!

Let me rephrase it a bit... (5, Insightful)

Memophage (88273) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928048)

Unless an application is running on a system in which the processor design, motherboard schematics and BIOS firmware are 100% Open Source, it can not claim to be Open Source.

Sound reasonable?

Re:Let me rephrase it a bit... (0)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928107)

A significant part of Free Software is the avoidance of vendor lock-in. If you write software for Windows, using Windows APIs, then it is not really Free, because you can't use it without using non-Free software. You are still locked in.

If you take the effort to ensure that your code builds with winelib (for example) or use some form of cross-platform middleware, then you are not promoting vendor lock-in. I develop on OS X, but I test with GNUstep, since that runs on a large number of platforms.

To rephrase your rephrasing once more:

Unless an application is capable of running on a system in which the processor design, motherboard schematics and BIOS firmware are 100% Open Source, it can not claim to be Open Source.

I can buy an FPGA, plug it into an open reference-design board (masks available), download a MIPS-compatible core from Open Cores to it and boot it into NetBSD. The OS and everything below it are Free Software. If your software will run in this, or an equivalent, configuration and meets the other requirements for being Free Software (i.e. the four freedoms) then it is Free. If not, then it's a tool for promoting vendor lock-in.

Re:Let me rephrase it a bit... (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928167)

But since the source is open, can't you simply rewrite it to use another platform? I mean you are "locked in" to whatever platform you write complex code for. If you have a graphic app that relies on X and QT you are locked in to using a platform that has and supports those things. Windows, for example, won't work without adding components. However the idea is that since you have the source, you can rewrite the X/QT calls into Windows API calls and thus move it to another platform.

Basically to me all this whining over openess of the whole thing sounds like just silly zealotry and isn't helpful.

Re:Let me rephrase it a bit... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928277)

That's spot on. What matters is how coupled the application is to the non-Free platform. Being a Win32 application that runs on WINE means it isn't coupled to the non-Free platform. Being a Win32 application that doesn't run on WINE means it is coupled to the non-Free platform and thus can't really be considered truly Free.

It's not the fact that something runs on Windows that prevents it from being Free. It's whether or not it has to run on Windows that is the deciding factor.

Re:Let me rephrase it a bit... (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928332)

A significant part of Free Software is the avoidance of vendor lock-in. If you write software for Windows, using Windows APIs, then it is not really Free, because you can't use it without using non-Free software. You are still locked in.

That's actually an interesting point. Is it even legal to redistribute (L)GPL software that's linked against the stuff like MFC or DirectX? I would think that anyone porting a Linux app to Windows using closed Win32-specific libraries and distributing executables could (technically) be sued by the original author of the GPL software. No?

Re:Let me rephrase it a bit... (2, Insightful)

scooviduvoctagon (801935) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928150)

Unless an application is running on a system in which the processor design, motherboard schematics and BIOS firmware are 100% Open Source, it can not claim to be Open Source. Sound reasonable?

It's called "argument of the beard"...

Everyone has a different point at which they split the hairs.

God Hates Fanbois. (0)

SquadBoy (167263) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928049)

Nuff said.

OSS is good no matter what platform you use it on. I don't care what RMS says and I imagine if more folks would give up the whole politcal thing and just focused on quality that things would be better.

Of course I'll not go into the irony of the fact that most of the people doing said whining are using Linux and the contradications that they ignore.

So no OSS on Windows is *good*.

And this from a dedicated OpenBSD and OS X user. :)

Paging WAAAHmbulance... (1)

Orrin Bloquy (898571) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928051)

WTF is "The Microsoft Community"? When I boot into XP I'm in TMC but when I boot into Debian I'm not? When I boot into OS X I'm not except if I'm using Word?

Does it make sense? (4, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928052)

No, of course not. These are zealots we're talking about. Logic rarely has anything to do with it.

As to the argument: What are the overall goals of OSS? I suspect you'd get 10 different answers from 5 different people. But even if you define the goal as free and open software, you'd still want OSS projects on windows to create a transition medium. So the zealots would still be wrong.

In short, ignore them and keep up the good work.

vocal minority (4, Insightful)

Enahs (1606) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928055)

It's just a vocal minority. Chill. Most people aren't that particular.

Seriously, I love the fact that people are passionate enough about something that they're willing to write Open/Free Software for Windows. After all, it's a VERY popular platform, and unlikely to go away any time soon. Firefox? Sure! OpenOffice.org? Yes, please! These two projects are helping keep things at the office I work at both safe and legal. ClamWin? Why not? I could go on, but I won't.

A good analogy would be the days when kuro5hin.org was worth reading. You'd have material that was getting voted to sections and the front page all the time, but you'd only see comments like "stop posting this crap, we don't want to read it!"

Who's "we"?

Re:vocal minority (1, Insightful)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928232)

When someone makes a cross platform OSS app which happens to work on Windows (OOo, Firefox, Thunderbird, GAIM), I consider that great.

But when someone makes an OSS app which only works on Windows (Miranda), I consider it somewhat of a waste.

Idiotic (5, Insightful)

dshaw858 (828072) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928059)

I'm usually very understanding of people defending linux, unix, bsd... and in fact, I'm an avid NetBSD user myself. However, people who don't support open source software on Microsoft platforms are really just hurting themselves. For example, how can one argue against the "low quality of open sourced software" to a Windows user, who cannot try any open source software themselves? Mozilla Firefox has helped immensely in this regard, showing how open source software can truly trump proprietary software.

I'm all for open source operating systems, but let's be realistic here: zealots who don't respect open source efforts on Windows are not only being stubborn, but are hurting their treasured cause.

- dshaw

Who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Otter (3800) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928062)

If you're making a useful, free product that people use and benefit from (or just something you take pride in), who cares what a bunch of Lunix-obsessed 14-year-old loudmouths think? Your users know who is useful and who is just a noisy jackass.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928276)

Who cares what some person who can not spell Linux thinks?

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928300)

It appears one of those 14-y.o. zealots modded parent to troll. Tsk tsk tsk.

I use a lot of OSS on doze (1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928063)

Hell, I even depend on the stuff to get my work done. I mean, real work: I use mozilla at my place of employment, for example, and it definitely makes me both more and less productive than internet exploder (depending on whether I'm using it for work, or for slashdotting.) And, I tend to use cygwin everywhere.

But, at the same time, I totally understand the argument that people who write OSS for windows or port OSS to windows are part of the problem (tm). If we want to defeat windows - and I hope we do, because it sucks - we shouldn't be supporting windows by making it more usable.

Re:I use a lot of OSS on doze (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928142)

If we want to defeat windows - and I hope we do, because it sucks - we shouldn't be supporting windows by making it more usable.


"Defeating Windows" may be one way of accomplishing that, but it's not the only way.

Re:I use a lot of OSS on doze (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928179)

We should ALWAYS BE MAKING COMPUTER SYSTEMS MORE USABLE. "Defeating Windows" may be one way of accomplishing that, but it's not the only way.

It may not be the only way, but it's the best way.

Usability goes beyond the GUI and the help. There's also the idea that you should be able to use your computer without legal, political, or monopolistic interference.

Making windows slightly more usable by making it possible to run more OSS on it means that windows will be around even longer, exerting its negative influence on the largest number of computers for the longest period of time.

Re:I use a lot of OSS on doze (4, Insightful)

kuzb (724081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928236)

1) There is no operating system called "doze" - You might benefit from the link in my tagline.
2) You can't defeat something unless you have something better to replace it with. Linux is not better from an end-user standpoint.
3) People who port their software are NOT part of the problem. They are part of the solution. Exposure to what F/OSS is capable of will make it more likely that someone will use it in the future.
4) People like you are part of the problem. You would limit choice based on platform.

Re:I use a lot of OSS on doze (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928278)

1) There is no operating system called "doze" - You might benefit from the link in my tagline.

1) There is no award for pedantry on slashdot. You might benefit from removing the stick from your ass. I was calling windows "doze" (and for that matter, calling microsoft M$) before there was a slashdot.

2) You can't defeat something unless you have something better to replace it with. Linux is not better from an end-user standpoint.

Yeah, and it never will be if people keep expending their effort to improve the lives of windows users.

3) People who port their software are NOT part of the problem. They are part of the solution. Exposure to what F/OSS is capable of will make it more likely that someone will use it in the future.

They are part of the short-term problem, and the long-term solution - but that's just my opinion. Like you, I have no facts to back my opinion on this matter up with.

4) People like you are part of the problem. You would limit choice based on platform.

No, I would limit choice based on licensing terms, but you can feel free to imagine anything you like and attribute it to me - you will anyway. Asshole.

Re:I use a lot of OSS on doze (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928252)

OSS on windoz is 1,000% necessary. If 90% of people are on windoz which includes all the non-computer-literate people we help out everyday then that means they don't actually care about the OS. Most people don't even know what an OS is. But they know WORD. Replace WORD (OOo 2.0). Then M$ gets a smaller share of the market. Goooooogle.

Remember the key to success. Developers, developers, developers.

M$ nightmare scenario is not Linux. It's the developers jumping ship.

The Definition of Open Source (3, Insightful)

ThinkComp (514335) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928069)

Here's what I think of open source [thinkcomputer.com], at least from a technical perspective.

From a legal perspective, there are 58 OSI-approved "open source" licenses last I checked, which together constitute at least 58 different definitions. There's no consensus on what it really means. Personally, I feel that if I can read the code, the code is open source. All the other factors are extraneous.

However, one would think that in the spirit of openness, the open source community would welcome whatever contributions it gets, no matter how they're licensed. Sadly, that's rarely the case. I actually had someone threaten me with trademark infringement on the term "open source," when we released the Lampshade PHP framework [thinkcomputer.com] under a dual license [thinkcomputer.com] of our own. Of course, that person didn't own the trademark, becaues there is no trademark on the generic term, but whoever it was felt justified in threatening me anyway.

If the open source community wants respect, it should be willing to treat people who contribute with respect, too. Scaring off contributors is not the way to go.

Re:The Definition of Open Source (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928233)

If we go back to the original meaning of "Open" in the context of source code, being able to see and edit the source to make your own customizations is what the word means. Or at least, what it meant. Next on the scene we had the "Free/free" software dichotomy, aka free as in speech, free as in beer. Why people felt it necessary to change the meaning of open source is beyond me. Now we lack a term that simply means that you have access to the code.

Ideology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928071)

Typically Open Source is mix of both pragmatism and dogmatism, and many of the most vocal members of the Open Source community hold ideological beliefs that software and knowledge should be free, so if your software doesn't run on "Free" systems, you're not following their ideology.

why is this a problem? (2, Insightful)

p2sam (139950) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928087)

Why is this a problem? and why should OSS developers on the Windows platform care about opinions of zealots?

Re:why is this a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928148)

It's a problem, because who enjoys hearing the community they are attempting to participate in slam them because they don't do things "perfectly"?

I could write an application that does something never done before, better then it's ever been done ... and the flamer/egotistical part of the developer community would slam it for any little imperfection that they can find. It's almost human nature, especially in the online world.

The funny thing is, the OSS zealots who complain and argue about OSS projects on MS Windows, are the ones who are helping ruin their fight. I had a discussion with a friend the other day who was working on a new project. I asked him if he was going to have it be Open Source. Without hesitation he said "No, it doesn't run on Linux". The OSS Zealots are seemingly trying to make it known that if it's on MS, it ain't Open Source. So why even participate in the community at all?

OSS should be everywhere!!! Hooray!!! (2, Interesting)

dslauson (914147) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928089)

I know a lot of people are going to say that if you want to use a content management tool like Dot Net Nuke, why not just go Linux instead.

That's sometimes easier said than done. I worked for a company that had a huge existing codebase in ASP and C#, and they had already bought the licenses for Windows server. The actual Microsoft Content Management Server was so insanely prohibitively expensive that it wasn't even an option. Dot Net Nuke saved the day.

For the open source model to become what people want it to become, it needs to be not only embraced by the slashdot community of Linux nerds, but by everbody else, as well. Stuff like this is a good start.

OpenFirmware? (1)

ZiZ (564727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928090)

Seems to me if you're going to be hard-nosed about the 'stack' idea, you wouldn't consider anything open-source unless it also ran on an open-source firmware (like OpenFirmware), and perhaps even open-source hardware...which doesn't describe the majority of Linux boxes out there, last I checked.

Re:OpenFirmware? (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928161)

The question is not does it run on an open platform, but can it. Linux and NetBSD, for example, will boot happily on a MIPS system running on an FPGA - and the core can be downloaded from Open Cores under a Free license. That's probably a bit more Free than I feel the need to be, but I like the option being there. Software written using Windows APIs, however, will not run on anything other than Windows unless care has been made to port it to winelib or similar.

Its about priorities (1, Troll)

Clockwurk (577966) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928095)

I use lots of open source software on windows (firefox, VLC, thunderbird, etc.) and really enjoy it. I get the best of both worlds; I can use awesome software for free and I don't have to deal with any of the shortcomings of linux (my copy/paste works correctly, all my hardware is supported, and I can play games other than frozen bubble and tux racer).

I'm not sure why any open source developer would shun windows. On Windows, the users have no problems paying for good software (I bought x-chat for windows), and the market for software is a lot larger than the 3 or 4% that use linux.

Off the mark (0, Troll)

totallygeek (263191) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928096)

I don't think that the problem is a lack of respect, but perhaps we are sensibly cautious. I mean, Microsoft has a documented history of wanting to destroy open source. Just because they layer some open source apps on their operating system without a mention of apology or cast-in-stone policy change we should all believe they seen the light?

Re:Off the mark (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928330)

Microsoft is currently going out of its way to build a Free Software community around it's .NET technologies. The reason that Microsoft is doing this is simple. Microsoft has seen how important the Free Software Java community has been to the continued success of Java, and Microsoft wants to replicate that. If Microsoft can get outside hackers to improve the .NET platform then they would be foolish *not* to encourage that sort of behavior. DNN is a perfect example. If someone installs DNN then they are going to have purchase Windows Server at the very least, and they might very well buy SQL Server as well. This is a huge win for Microsoft if the alternative is to run your CMS system on Zope, or PHPNuke, or some other system that runs on a completely Free (as in Freedom) platform.

Microsoft doesn't have a problem with Free Software, it just has a problem with Free Software that can be used to replace software that it sells.

There are Open Source zealots (2, Insightful)

Darius Jedburgh (920018) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928097)

Is there a story here? Even if these people were a majority it doesn't do anything to stop anyone who wants to write open source for whatever platform they feel like. Even if these people want to declare that freely distributed Windows source is no longer to be called Open Source it still wouldn't stop Windows users distributing software and calling it something else. So try as I might, I can't find even the tiniest shadow of a story here.

Cross Platform (4, Insightful)

KrackHouse (628313) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928099)

If it's Windows only I could see how the anti-MS types would lose respect but if it's cross platform then intentionally preventing it from running on Windows would seem to be missing the point of openness.

Re:Cross Platform (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928280)

Well, in DotNetNuke's case, their CMS is built on top of ASP.NET, and SQL Server or Oracle. In this case, I don't think people care so much that it's built on top of proprietary tools, they probably more care that it means it will probably cost them more money to get this particular CMS up and running, whereas other CMS's are free as-in-beer. On top of that, it's very likely non-portable.

Open source is open source (1)

SeraphimXI (927683) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928101)

If the code is viewable to anyone and usuable by anyone then that means anyone if they wanted could start their own personal project to port it off of the propriatary software and onto a free software base. If you lack the information to do something like that then I would argue that it wasn't open source. Just because a program is running only on windows doesn't mean it's not open source. Algorythms are platform independent.

A mute point (3, Insightful)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928102)

The kernel that is being run doesn't really matter to a user when they consider one specific program. Usually what matters is the librarys being used. While supporting Windows is a honorable goal, using Win32 exclusive libraries creates problems. The windows implementations of Gaim, and wget work well because the foundational libraries project authors used to write the software have been ported to platforms that did not already support them. When you choose to write an open source program using proprietary libraries, porting to a more useful platform is hard, and the lack of forsight observed is just frusturating.

I think the quoted in this post was trying to get false sympathy. By using someone elses foundation you are gaining advantages that allow your job to be done more easily, However when that foundation is closed source you do no favours to people who would improve or port your project. So unless you want to do ALL the non-foundational work yourself, find a good open source foundation, or write your own OS foundation.

This is more of a practical argument than a philosphical one. I'm sure the /. crowd will not assess many pity points for whining.

Re:A mute point (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928168)

did you mean a "moot" point?

Re:A mute point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928190)

What this post reminds me of.... "Moo".

Hint... you meant "Moot"... not "Mute", not "Moo", but "Moot".

Looking at this from a different perspective (1)

agraupe (769778) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928105)

I prefer programming on Linux because I find it easier. There is more *free* documentation, the standards are more open, and better programming tools are available for free. I have no doubt it evens out when you buy Visual C++ or something of that nature, but it isn't really an option for me. Linux, as I see it, is far more developer friendly; almost every system has a compiler, so you have a reasonable guarantee, as a developer, that a user will be able to compile your software without any extra packaging. Also, consider that code written for POSIX compliant, UNIX-like systems will run on any such system, whereas an application written for Windows will only run on Windows (except through WINE or emulators). Cross-platform code, either through something like Java (yes, I know it has its disadvantages) or through cross-platform libraries, like QT or wxWindows, is certainly the holy grail. That being said, I don't think it's hard to see why single-platform OSS applications tend to stick to a POSIX environment rather than Windows.

Re:Looking at this from a different perspective (1)

CockMonster (886033) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928271)

I think you're confusing writing command line apps with writing GUI apps. I'm pretty sure NT is Posix compliant. I have written programs in C and compiled (and tested) them both on Windows and Linux platforms without modification.

More sour grapes than truth here, I suspect (4, Insightful)

andyross (48228) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928111)

The one thing missing from this article is the actual evidence of abuse from the broader Open Source community.

I mean, sure, there are undeniably people who insist on running a 100% pure free software stack (I'm close to this end of the spectrum myself). And there are undeniably trolls out there who see the use of non-free software (more commonly MS software specifically) as evidence of moral corruption, idiocy, or malice. And these populations have some overlap.

But so what? The reaction from the sane folks in the OSS community is going to be just, well, ignorance. As a full-time linux user, I will admit that I've never heard of "DotNetNuke" and have no plans on using it. It just doesn't enter my field of view, sorry.

Ignoring projects isn't the same thing as "disrespect", and I suspect the author has confused the two.

True Dat (1)

Jjeff1 (636051) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928114)

Windows user here, but when I have a problem to solve, I look first to Open Source, usually a search of sourceforge.
There are some very nice OSS windows apps, as well as *nix apps ported to Win32. There are also a good number of "Windoze" type comments which do nothing but let me know the maturity level of the author(s).

Hint for the flamers - that maturity level would be low.

If I'm trying to get a OSS project into a predominatly windows shop, I already face some sort of battle. My CTO sees a polished salesperson offering a packaged product with SLAs; then they see me and the PFY. Don't give the salesperson ammo, be professional.

Port Up or Shut Up (4, Insightful)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928122)

Personally, I'm a big fan of platform-independent open source. I run XP at home and built myself a WAMPP development platform, using Windows XP, Apache 2, PHP, Perl, and MySQL. It makes my life easier, because I can use all my comfort-zone editors (text, bitmap, vector) and integrate the results into the dev site on the fly.

Would I care if a project that was really useful to me on Windows wasn't viable on Linux? Yes and no. I think that platform independence is a HUGE plus in the FOSS world. It definitely earns you bonus points. It increases the level of freedom the users of that project have. BUT, users of that project are also free to port it to other platforms. I wouldn't be able to run my WAMPP environment if people hadn't ported the AMPP portion to Windows.

Using more proprietary foundations like .NET do limit the usefulness of an OSS project, but only until people get interested in developing ports. If nothing else, you can build a forked project that uses the best logic and functions that aren't platform dependent and merges them with a more platform independent underpinning.

If you're developing OSS for .NET, kudos on being open source, but you do miss the bonus points for being platform independent and don't whine about not getting the cred platform-independent projects of the same nature do. If you're an OSS user who sees this great project built on a proprietary stack and are pissed because it's not available for your platform, "port up or shut up".

- Greg

putty and winscp (1, Interesting)

truckaxle (883149) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928124)

I have a lot of respect for the developers of putty and winscp both are windows based open source project and work wonderfully. I have even given up using samba altogether now and use winscp exclusively as a file manager and file transfer.

Re:putty and winscp (1, Interesting)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928274)

I agree. Putty and WinSCP are excellent tools which I use quite often in Microsoft Windows.

Why only Windows? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928125)

I don't know much about this project, but perhaps the flak/non-repect that you are recieving is that by being Windows-only you are helping to support and maintain the MS monopoly/vendor lock-in.

Again, I don't know much about this project - but is there a specific reason for being Windows only instead of being multiplatform?

Think Of It This Way (1)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928130)

Developing good OSS software on Windows is like tossing out life jackets to shipwreck survivors. They're not safe yet, but at least they aren't drowning. I love Linux and running on some of my boxes but the OSS software has been the most useful to me is Firefox running on my Windows XP machine and likewise for millions of others. Everyday I'm thankful to the FF team because it saves me many many hours of frustration that I had to deal with before when using IE. There's also Thunderbird. If you're measuring success by number of hours of frustration you've saved people and value you've added to their computing time, OSS on Windows makes sense. FF has been WILDLY successful and undoubtedly the most common OSS foothold/beach head on most Windows machines. Once we've convinced the average Joe that the OSS model is sound, then other OSS programs will follow. They're not going to read the Cathedral and the Bazaar. FF is something they can see. The experience will convince them.

What if nobody notices? (1)

digidave (259925) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928132)

I have heard about DotNetNuke here and there, but not very often. This is surprising since it's supposed to be good, is free, and I often do work implementing content management systems.

OpenOffice.org gets lots of attention partly *because* it supports Windows, so supporting Windows isn't the problem. The main reason why I suspect DDN gets little attention is because it's stuck to a proprietary system: Windows and IIS. If they haven't already, the DDN team should work on getting it working with Mono under the Apache web server in both Windows and Linux. If needed, they should contribute code to Mono to fix incompatibilities. They'd then be able to play in the same ballpark as other content management software that is available cross-platform and they'd certainly get a lot of attention from Linux users.

Re:What if nobody notices? (1)

k98sven (324383) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928253)

I concur.

OpenOffice.org gets lots of attention partly *because* it supports Windows, so supporting Windows isn't the problem.

Quite true. Same goes for Firefox, Gimp, BitTorrent and others pieces of software which are some of the most popular and successful in the FOSS world.

Few FOSS devs are so zealous that they'd refuse a windows port, all else being equal. The "problem" here is that one of the features of FOSS is avoiding vendor lock-in. So if your software is heavily bound to a certain proprietary platform, then you'll have to expect that the people not using that platform won't be interested.

The other "side" of the problem as I see it, is that while Windows has the vast majority of users, it doesn't have the vast majority of FOSS developers. I think most would be happy to see lots more FOSS on Windows, but there are just too few devs prepared to do the work.

I've seen people port more FOSS stuff I've written to BeOS than Windows!

I once wrote this.. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928134)

Recently (Dec 2004) there's been some outspoken people saying that Free Software applications on win32 and other proprietary platforms is a bad thing. Well I'm outspoken, so here's my opinion.

People should switch to GNU/Linux because they value their freedom, not because there's more apps, or because the TCO is lower. If they switch because of these secondary reasons they will be nothing but a burden on Free Software. These people are the ones who are after a free lunch and frankly, we have enough trouble feeding each other without feeding them too. So how is Free Software on win32 a good thing then? Porting Free Software to win32 is a cheap way to give users the opportunity to experience freedom for themselves. They can directly compare their freedom to copy, modify and distribute Free Software to the tyranny of most closed source alternatives. Then they can make the choice to switch for the right reasons and be a productive member of our community.

If it's open source... (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928135)

...it may as well be cross-platform!

I don't have any problem with OSS written for the Windows environment. It's just as cool as any other, but I am most accustomed to seeing any given project being written to support multiple platforms. I don't see any reason why any Windows-targeted project couldn't also be made cross-platform when using the appropriate libraries.

OpenOffice.org, Firefox and The GiMP are terrific examples of this sort of thing. It could only make a project more likely to live longer.

Stop worrying about zealots (1)

Kalroth (696782) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928136)

First of all, make your (hard) work open source because you want to share it with others.
Don't do it for "street creds" or anything similar silly.

So what if the non-windows open source community doesn't like your project.
If it's a good project people will get interested in it and contribute to it. If it's not .. well then you've at least put it out there.
Someone somewhere will make use of some of the code somehow, even if they don't contribute back.

And personally I think the "but windows isn't free!" argument is void.
If people wants to use some open source application on their platform of choice, it's open for them to port it.

That's kinda the idea of open source, no?

Plain and Simple, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928137)

you will never get respect if you are from the Dark side. Sadly, you are not going to get respect from the Windows side (not closed enough) and you will not get respect from the OSS (not "do not be evil" enough or simply not open enough).

Besides, whinners are always tossed aside.

VB.Net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928140)

I could never get past the fact that Dot Net Nuke was all in VB.NET.

Talk about zealotry. How about a C# port for all the grown ups?

Talk to the folk at Wine (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928141)

The Wine [winehq.org] get the same sort of flack, as do those working on ReactOS [reactos.com], which is actually a complete replacement for Windows.

It's just platform chauvinism, plain and simple. It stems from a very simplistic world view, a sort of If you aren't 100% against them, you must be against us.

The irony is, it's often those who whine and complain the loudest about Micro$oft that do the least to support actual Open Source development.

Ooops, that was almost well thought out and reasoned... I should have just said: "You're new here, aren't you?"

attack on all fronts (1)

bugi (8479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928162)

Attack the problem from all angles.

Don't force the poor MS-Windows users to suffer a pure lock-in environment. Show them a glimpse of Freedom and they'll know where to come when they eventually get fed up.

Misinterpretation? (1)

kuzb (724081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928163)

I think most OSS people just want to see your OSS Windows software running under multiple platforms. I think the lack of respect comes when people build things for windows which are then not ported to linux.

Apache, Mozilla, MySQL, PHP - these are examples of OSS projects where they are both cross-platform, and respected. I don't think they would have been nearly as well recieved if they were for Windows only. Of course, there is a large subset who think that anything designed for the Windows platform must be crap. I think it's easy enough to recognise and filter those opinions out though.

Predefined Notions (2, Informative)

caperry (31048) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928181)

From my experience, there are a lot of people who make "free" software in windows and it's frowned upon becuase "it's a plot to install a virus on my system". Then there is the folks who feel that writing software for windows should earn them money no matter what. On the flip side, you can get a lot of flack for making non-free software on Linux or you can been seen as evil for charging for services that "should be free". Long and short of it: you can't please everyone. If it makes you happy and people are using it, just keep doing what you are doing. There is a vocal minority on either side of the fence to flame you :)

Damm, this is hard core... But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928185)

I feel that the best of the open source are the projects that include windows stuff. I can not tell you how many people I have shown Ethereal are now using it. In fact I showed an instructor Ethereal and after he saw it, he made it part of his windows class.

I think that the windows open source packages are a very good way of showing what can be done with open source. As a result open source can be shown in a positive light. If this free package works this well Windows.... How good do you think it is under Linux? Or how good is Linux?

I understand the all or nothing attitude, I wish the world was so simple. If I had my choice it would be 100% not windows. But for those of us who are trying to "fight the good fight" good open source windows packages open doors for other options.

Zealotry the curse of all things free and open. (1)

mallie_mcg (161403) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928188)

It's the Zealots who screw things up for everyone.

1) Its not open source if it runs on windows - (dot net nuke) - umm yes it is, hell with the BSD licence its more open source than the linux kernel (the level's of freedom it allows)

2) RIAA/MPAA/ARIA/MIPI - They are over zealous in attempting to protect their existing revenue streams rather than adapting to the new environment that we now have and finding better ways, more customer friendly ways to make money.

All I have to say is mad props to anyone (company, person, organisation) who releases anything where the source is availailbe, modifiable and distributable.

Someone hand him a clue-by-four (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928195)

Let's see.

From DotNetNuke Introduction [dotnetnuke.com]
"DotNetNuke is built on a Microsoft ASP.NET (VB.NET) platform."

From TFA:
"It's hard being an open source project on the Microsoft platform. Because no matter how hard you try to exemplify true open source ideals, you will not get any respect from the non-Microsoft community."

Like duh, if I cannot run your software, I can't bloody well form an opinion now, can I? And whining like a three year old that you don't get no respek isn't helping either.


Be More Specific (1)

abscondment (672321) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928198)

I'd say that some cases of Open Source on Windows are genuinely good, and others aren't so much. When it's open source that can run on Windows, I say "yay!". When it's open source that requires Windows, I balk.

Part of the philosophy is to put choice into the hands of each individual. I give a lot more credence to OSS that can run on multiple platforms. Sure, you can run .NET projects on Mono or the like - but that's a hoop you have to jump through. You can't be truly confident in the success you'll have, either.

When a project requires you to use closed source software to ensure its functioning, it's virility as an open source program is questionable. Sure, the source is available - but it's dependant on something that is closed. There's no guarantee that the framework upon which it is built won't change, and if it does change then what? Open source programs that are built upon closed source interfaces and systems can do nothing but hope that the next version of said closed source program will continue functioning the way its previous versions have. And they're given no guarantee whatsoever.

I still think it's great that projects like DotNetNuke release their stuff as open source. I just wonder why - why do they choose to build it upon something closed source? It's not as if .NET is intrinsically better than other development options. I mean, DotNetNuke is written in VB.NET [dotnetnuke.com] - even if I were to develop in .NET, this wouldn't be my first choice. Regardless, I'd be hesitant to choose something that is so heavily tied to a closed source system.

Slashdot, what happened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928206)

Slashdot's never been at the top of the heap as far as journalism goes, but seriously, what the hell has been going on the past year? It seems like actual tech/science news is becoming a rarity here. I mean look at this article: "Some guy was dissed by a couple nutters!!!!!". Yah, crazy zealots are crazy and exist as a minuscule subset of any group. How shocking. Then there's the blog rumour buzzmill. OMG, some dude posted wild speculation on a BLOG! Google's totally writing a java based word processor, and a browser, and a DVR! Some dude on a BLOG says so, because he saw a cloud that totally looked like a portent! I wouldn't mind so much if there wasn't anything going on, but there is! I see tons of stories every day on other tech and science sites that are passed by in favour of wanking some more to google or posting these "I got my feelings hurt!" human interest pieces.

Please.... DotNetNuke is as poorly run as any proj (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13928215)

DNN is as burecratic and annoying as any other open source application I have had the pleaseure of using. The fact that it is for the dot net framework has no impact on that.

I love how they hide things until they are "ready". Very good strategy there.

It won't be long before there is another flavor of the month web platform thingy and they will drop off into obscurity like the others. Could it be dot net on rails I hear coming?

what's the sense of open source? (1)

PartyOnTheSand (738429) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928255)

i think it is all about solving problems and sharing solutions / searching for solutions. for me this is the most important aspect of open source.

also software development is more and more going into a direction where you can solve a problem on one system and having solved it for others as well. (java, .net + gkt#, ..)
and also if a software is developed nearer to a propietary api it is more avaluable than a closed software and has value for the community, because of those parts which are plattform independent. and then still then sometimes it happens that a proprietary api is transformed to a new plattform (directx for linux).

really, for me it is an arrogant view of an open source supporter saying open source is only valueable if it is developed on / for an open source os.

i think open source is a big puzzle and at the beginning there were GNU tools for a proprietary unix kernel (sure with the goal to write also an open source kernel) and everybody of the linux community uses them. so for me it is not important which part of the puzzle is first or last. they will fit together at the end. i'm sure.


Free Software ideals (1)

SWroclawski (95770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928268)

For the ideals of Open Source, indeed, there's no reason not to use Windows Open Source software, but from the perspective of a Free Software advocate, there's a very real reason to want the sort of "software stack" mentioned.

The idea of Free Software is to replace all proprietary software with Free Software. It was the intention of the GNU project to clone Unix part by part.

When a program is built that runs on the Free platforms, it strengthens the entire movement.

Free Software for Windows can be a positive goal, but does not help the goal of replacing all proprietary software since the platform itself is non-Free.

It all depends on your goal.

Sometimes, Free Software on Windows can be a good thing. Firefox and OpenOffice.org, Gaim and Gimp have all been helpful for Windows users I know in evaluating GNU/Linux desktops. Since they're used to the program, the transition is easier.

But what all of those programs have in common is that they run in both GNU/Linux and Windows, and not Windows exclusively.

Sense and context (1)

karmaflux (148909) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928286)

If your goal is widespread adoption ASAP, then no, the stack mentality doesn't make any sense. You want your program to run anywhere, even if it starts on an MS platform and moves to OSS platforms later.

However, third-world governments and other impoverished groups are automatically excluded from the use of any program which requires an MS platform, because the cost of entry is automatically at least the cost of the operating system from Microsoft.

This is, of course, no reason to deride the great applications that are available only on MS platforms -- and I remember when Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was one of those -- but by any account it's slightly foolish to tie your programming to a single platform. If the anti-Microsoft crew gets their way, and open source is the only option, where does that leave your dot-net application? Hopefully in the hands of the mono project... but if you're tied exclusively to a platform, your deployment options drastically dwindle.

How open is C#? (2, Informative)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928291)

This is one reason why I don't use C#. People who use C# develop for Windows and Windows only (MONO be damned). C# is owned by Microsoft; true there is an open implementation but Microsoft has refused to support it, refused to allow them to their .NET conferences or anything else... which says they will NEVER support an open implementation of C#.

It's like building an 'open source' house with wood that's owned by Bill Gates. What is going to happen to your house when Bill decides to start breeding termites on location? Bye bye house. And bye bye open source C# implementation.

Not Really True. Consider OS X (1)

logicnazi (169418) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928317)

I simply dispute the idea that open source software doesn't get respect unless it is part of a 100% open stack. There seem to be a good number of projects aimed specifically at OS X and apple products despite the fact that large parts of OS X are not open source.

I think what is really going on has less to do with open source vs. non-open source but more with the type of culture the operating system encourages. Quite simply windows does not encourage a hacker friendly culture while OS X and other operating systems do. Of course all open source systems encourages this hacker friendly atmosphere because they are written by hackers and their success depends on attracting new contributers. If MS did everything though open standards and hacker friendly rather than commercially friendly architecture I suspect they would recieve alot more respect from the OSS community even if they kept their underlying kernel and other code closed.

No suprises here (1)

mrderm (685352) | more than 8 years ago | (#13928331)

"Its hard being an X project if you are non-portable and run exclusively on platform Y. You get no respect from the pro-X non-Y zealots".

The main problem here is the exclusivity.

(The second problem is listening to zealots)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account