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!

The Most Desired Linux Ports

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the show-of-hands dept.

Novell 320

zenboomerang writes "It looks like Novell is trying to hit the hammer on the top of software developers heads and try and get them to port their applications directly to Linux. With help from the public they will try to pursuade the management of the most popular programs picked to get into the 21st Century and do some Linux testing. It seems to me to be a good idea and all it needs is a little help from the community."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


21st century? (-1, Flamebait)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575104)

I thought the 21st century meant making it web-based? Really, who uses this archaic C++ anymore? Geez...

Hands down! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575106)

Port 80.

Everyone wants that sweet sweet http.

Here's a start... (3, Funny)

$ASANY (705279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575108)

How about Microsoft Bob first?

Bonzi Buddy (2, Funny)

Soviet Assassin (815206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575180)

Come on, who doesnt want a cute purple thing talking to you while you recompile your kernel?

And it has to be said: In soviet russia, linux ports you!


Re:Bonzi Buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575224)

jesuitx, ?

Re:Bonzi Buddy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575348)

more like jew shit x

ps bro wanna join t4c, the place that all the good gnaaers went to

#6 Visio (1)

keithmo (453716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575123)

Sure. That'll happen.

OmniGraffle (1)

Shawn is an Asshole (845769) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575391)


Re:OmniGraffle (0, Redundant)

EvilSporkMan (648878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575746)

Omnigraffle [omnigroup.com] is for OS X; the article is about Linux.

Re:OmniGraffle (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575867)

I realize the story title is a little confusing. However, had you bothered to grok the article, you would not be making this comment.

Re:OmniGraffle (1)

EvilSporkMan (648878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575915)

Actually, I thought the GGP was saying that OmniGraffle _was_ a Visio equivalent for Linux, since the GGGP was scoffing at how Visio would never be ported. Responses longer than one word would've helped this situation.

Any port in a storm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575129)

I know everybody's all about the 80, and don't get me started on 1338, but there's nothing like a good 22 to handle all your needs. ;-D

Heh. From TFA: (5, Interesting)

republican gourd (879711) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575142)

From TFA:

Also, I think a nice attention-getter for the survey would be to get it slashdotted. Generally, I give about 75 points for a great article. If someone can get the survey on Slashdot, I will give you 250 points. As you all know, we have some incredible stuff for which you can redeem your points.

Re:Heh. From TFA: (1)

DongleFondle (655040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575212)

So what do you suppose CowboyNeal is going do with his 250 points? Can you say, unethical journalism?

Wait, did I say journalism? Nevermind.

Re:Heh. From TFA: (4, Interesting)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575261)

It's not on the frontpage, but rather in linux section, so zenboomerang, did you get 250 points?

some luck for linux-interested people (whole /.) that now it's much easier to spot non-frontpage linux stories (thanks to CmdrTaco ;)

nice followup will be about the results from this slashdotting. Will Autocad get to the top? I really hope so. CAD people in big companies really are tech-saavy, and really need reliable software to work with. Autocad running under windows is a misunderstanding, that currently lasts about 12 years (since they switched from dos, I still have v.12 running on dos, and v.13 running both on dos and windows). Heck, I remember working with some CAD software on on Amstrad/Shneider about 15 years ago, aww memories :)

Re:Heh. From TFA: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575415)

Autocad on linux sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Re:Heh. From TFA: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575744)

Or switch to Pro/ENGINEER

Geography (-1, Redundant)

someguy456 (607900) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575147)

I checked the numbers, and just under half of the overall requests came from the United States. About ten percent came from the United Kingdom. Why could that be? Well, it could be because the survey is in English. Or, it could be because most of the people who want to switch to Linux live in those countries.

Novell clout (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575151)

Because when it comes to major software manufacturers we know that they really fear Novell's clout right? There was a time when Novell was relevant in the software industry, but these days they're breathing their last dying breaths by trying to embrace Linux.

Port photoshop (5, Insightful)

baryon351 (626717) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575154)

Convince Adobe to bring Photoshop to Linux and I know dozens of people who'll switch in an eyeblink.

Re:Port photoshop (2, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575190)

Seriously, not trolling... why bother? Say you're a designer, and you have either Mac OSX on a Mac, or XP on a PC. Both are relatively modern, fast machines. What would switching to Linux get you?

Re:Port photoshop (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575248)

> Seriously, not trolling... why bother? Say you're a designer, and you have either Mac OSX
> on a Mac, or XP on a PC. Both are relatively modern, fast machines. What would switching
> to Linux get you?

Freedom from the constant expensive M$ or O$X upgrade cycle. $129 for a point upgrade? please. Linux is free in more than just freedom.

Re:Port photoshop (3, Informative)

nxtw (866177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575886)

FWIW, with Windows you don't really need those "point upgrades" until 5+ years until after they're released. Most new software still works with Windows 2000 (with the last free updates, of course). Sure, there are missing features and such, but the majority of the hardware out there supported in XP is still supported in 2000. The latest .NET Framework, .NET Framework 2.0, still runs on Windows 98 and Me as well as 2000/XP/2003. The latest version of Photoshop still runs on Windows 2000 as well as XP, as does most software I've seen.

I'm sure things are getting better, but the latest version of Photoshop only runs in Mac OS X 10.2 (2002) or later, and is "recommended" for use on 10.3 (2003) or 10.4 (2005) only. I've seen a lot of "System Requirements" for Mac software that explicitly require later versions of the OS. I suspect the APIs have stabilizied greatly across the past few versions.

Re:Port photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575530)

i want photoshop and AfterFX running/rendering on Sun Hardware. i would give up windows tommarrow if i could have Photoshop, afterFX, and something akin to Dreamweaver running on Linux or Solaris.

Re:Port photoshop (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575638)

  1. Linux is the most comfortable for me (To all you Linux-is-not-ready-for-the-desktop whiners, stfu. Don't tell me what I should like)
  2. Macs aren't cheap (and while OS X is pretty, it's still not Linux)
  3. Windows is a fucking annoying, retarded OS. Don't tell me to use it
  4. I happen to like Photoshop.
Good enough for you?

Re:Port photoshop (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575198)

I dare you to use GIMP [gimp.org] for a month without using photoshop. Almost everyone who does stays with GIMP.

Do you REALLY need the patented cruft Adobe adds to their apps? You probably don't.

Re:Port photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575251)

If the "patented cruft" you can live without includes things like sensible image dithering on reduced color palette images, or CMYK color, or the ability to copy and paste from your illustration app, or reduced color drift when stepping down to 8 bit color mode, or fast filters, about 1000 tiny workflow enhancements that just make life better ... then yeah GIMP rocks.

Seriously, I have both installed. GIMP may work well for some people, but to claim that it is a Photoshop replacement for everyone is just ignorance of both apps talking.

GIMP does quite a reasonable job for some things (true color photo-style images), but in an environment where you are getting paid for your work, it doesn't take long for Photoshop to pay for itself in time savings. I found GIMP terrible for doing reduced palette work and on the other side of the spectrum, it it unacceptable if you need to work in CMYK. Even though these are features you may not need - there are those of us that do.

Re:Port photoshop (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575324)

I found GIMP terrible for doing reduced palette work and on the other side
of the spectrum, it it unacceptable if you need to work in CMYK.

You might want to reconsider that statement [blackfiveservices.co.uk]

Re:Port photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575259)

Oh please. I've tried Gimp and it lacks way too many features in Adobe Photoshop.

Just look at the layer blending options!

Re:Port photoshop (1)

picklepuss (749206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575970)

You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Looking right at the layer tab in GIMP 2.2.8 I see the following modes:
    Hard Light
    Soft Light
    Grain Extract
    Grain Merge
    Darken Only
    Lighten Only

Not to mention the opacity slider, which is also helpful.

I don't know about you, but when I'm stacking layers, that's usually about all I need. That and a few layer masks, which happen to work well in GIMP.

About the only thing I missed from Photoshop for the first week was the ability to apply an affect to a layer non-destructively. That's a big plus, yes, but once you live without it for a couple of weeks, you forget about it.

What gives? (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575876)

I don't really understand what keeps this from happening on the technical side, but all I ever hear is "I'd switch to Linux if (insert Adobe / Macromedia product here) ran on Linux." So what is it that keeps Adobe from obliging? Is my perception of potential customer base way off? Is the porting process too daunting? Or is there some corporate political issue we don't know about (does Adobe have some type of business relationship with Microsoft)?

Re:Port photoshop (3, Informative)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575931)

Many graphic houses are designed to run photoshop. Their equipment is calibrated for Photoshop's color separations. Their processes are centered around Photoshop.

The GIMP is cool, don't get me wrong but Photoshop based houses will only run Photoshop.

The day that it is ported to Linux is the day that these houses will start looking at Linux on the desktop.


Re:Port photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575977)

Do you REALLY need the patented cruft Adobe adds to their apps? You probably don't.
Like deep editing and color management? Yes, yes I do.

what do points make? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575156)

Also, I think a nice attention-getter for the survey would be to get it slashdotted. Generally, I give about 75 points for a great article. If someone can get the survey on Slashdot, I will give you 250 points. As you all know, we have some incredible stuff for which you can redeem your points.

Automatic slashdotting (3, Informative)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575175)

Hmm, seems that the article redirects to itself when you block cookies, essentially causing the page to reload forever and ever. Can you say "automatic slashdotting"? :)

Please help (1)

solune (803114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575182)

Perhaps anyone who would like to see the widespread adoption of OSS should pass this poll along to even their non-geek friends.

It would seem reasonable to assume a widespread response to this survey would be shopped to app developers.

Biased Survey Construction? (5, Interesting)

DongleFondle (655040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575185)

"Of those top 10 applications, two of them are financial management packages. Looks like there is quite a demand for that. It looks like there is a huge interest in the AUTOCAD arena, as well. Something that is very well worth noting is the demand for multimedia applications."

I imagine this is probably because of the fact that they suggest all of those top ten applications in their dropdown menu (leaving an "other" option at the bottom in case you don't want any of their default applications). Anyone whose ever worked on survey or statistics theory knows this is an obvious bias. That's not to say that's its a bad idea to do this if they have an agenda, I'm just pointing out that the results should definately be taken with a grain of salt here. There may be more relevant programs people would like to see ported to Linux. I imagine lots of people can think of specific games they'd like to see ported. Anyone whose ever reads /. knows that there's a pretty large community of gamers that keep that one Windows box around just for gaming.

Anyways, I say best of luck to Novell. I'd love it if they were able to make some ground with Adobe on porting some of their apps.

Re:Biased Survey Construction? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575989)

It looks like there is a huge interest in the AUTOCAD arena
Hang on - isn't AutoCAD evolved from the cheap and simpler DOS version of the unix CAD packages that are still around today and still have more features than AutoCAD? The biggest problem with them is that they are not cheap.

Drafting is a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575187)

There is a dearth of good general purpose drafting programs. I would actually pay money for a version of AutoCad that runs on Linux.

User interface is very important and I have found most of the available programs frustrating in this regard.

Re:Drafting is a problem (1)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575590)

Old versions of AutoCAD are known to run in WINE with some trivial hacking. Google should be able to help you dig up that info...

Re:Drafting is a problem (1)

Nybble's Byte (321886) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575811)

Irrelevant. If you're not running the latest version the rest of the office is using, you're fighting a losing battle.

Only one I really need (2, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575188)

and that's a Microsoft NetMeeting compatible conferencing tool. Too many flipping NetMeeting sessions going on at work, and I hate having to borrow an MS box, call up IT, get a login (forgotten immediately) and so on -- all to join a meeting.

Wouldn't hurt to have a client for Webex, either. Never mind what they say, their putative Linux client still seems to require Red Hat 7.x

Re:Only one I really need (1)

HardCase (14757) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575455)

and that's a Microsoft NetMeeting compatible conferencing tool. Too many flipping NetMeeting sessions going on at work, and I hate having to borrow an MS box, call up IT, get a login (forgotten immediately) and so on -- all to join a meeting.

Doesn't that suggest that you're using a screwdriver to pound nails (to torture an already tortured analogy)?


Interesting (4, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575193)

Most of that list doesn't surprise me too much. I thought Photoshop would be first, but Quickbooks does make sense, as does Autocad. I'm a bit surprised to see Act! on the list (I haven't heard about that software in years).

That said, I don't think you'd ever see iTunes for Linux (and I was amazed it was on the list, I would have never guessed it).

And then there is Visio. That will never be ported either. If Visio is there, why isn't Office? That said, I've never met someone who liked Visio in the two years or so I've been exposed to it. What Visio needs first is a good Windows port. OmniGraffle is much better. How about a Linux port of that?

Re:Interesting (2, Interesting)

dingo217 (786854) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575254)

iTunes is already running on Linux. The Motorola Rokr E2 uses an embedded Linux OS, and runs the Rokr version of iTunes on that.

Re:Interesting (1)

niteice (793961) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575605)

I would guess it's a ground-up app designed to emulate the iPod interface. Not iTunes. Very different topics.

autocad, but not microstation? (1)

fl!ptop (902193) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575199)

interesting that autocad is #2 but microstation didn't even make the list? they're pretty much the last 2 standing in the design world.

i think if the gimp had cmyk support photoshop probably wouldn't be on the list at all.

Re:autocad, but not microstation? (0, Flamebait)

jonwil (467024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575466)

ok then, so why DOESNT GIMP have CMYK support?
Is it just a matter of someone saying "I will add CMYK support to GIMP" and writing some code?
Or is there something more?

Re:autocad, but not microstation? (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575671)

Is it just a matter of someone saying "I will add CMYK support to GIMP" and writing some code?

Been done, nobody seems very interested. http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml [blackfiveservices.co.uk]

Re:autocad, but not microstation? (2, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575803)

I think one of the problems with CMYK is that every CMYK output device (printers, imagesetters, plotters, printing presses etc) needs its own translation logic/tables to translate the colors into CMYK that will look like what the artist wants when the CMYK is output to the device. Device makers will give this information to companies like Adobe but would be reluctant to give it to developers of an open source program (especially under a licence that is open-source friendly)

weh (2, Insightful)

labratuk (204918) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575216)

iTunes? hah!

Re:weh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575762)

Run the windows version in wine. But unless you want the store, or stream to an airport express (I do) why bother? Amarok is a better application and supports more formats. iTunes has also become unstable since the version 6. Lots of us our finding it freezing mid track for no reason. :-(

Of that List... (5, Interesting)

SmartSsa (19152) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575238)

It actually surprises me that Lotus Notes has never been avail for linux. Since it's heavily Java based it should be easily portable and with IBM backing it in their Pro-Linux state... why hasn't it been? Maybe because it's a hunk of junk.

The only ones on that list that I'd care to see are Visio, Autocad and Photoshop.

But I do agree that there's a serious need for business/money/finance software. GNUCash and a few other's that are out there just don't cut it. I just hate Quickbooks with a passion :)

Re:Of that List... (5, Informative)

bobrog (945115) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575558)

IBM is rolling out GTK based Linux Notes client called the "Notes Plugin" which will be a part of their Lotus Workplace product. This article [techtarget.com] says the Linux Notes Plugin will be available later this year and this blog [edbrill.com] discusses its demo taking place at Lotusphere 2006 this week.

WTF? No Half Life 2?!?! (4, Insightful)

elasticwings (758452) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575258)

Oh, come on. There have got to be a ton of other people that want their CS:S fix without having to keep around a Windows box. And don't start with that Cedega crap. I want it a real Linux installer.

PF (2, Interesting)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575262)

One of the things I miss on Linux is PF. I like OpenBSD for other reasons, but PF is the only thing I can't do without, so I keep another box around for it.

Once I've got one of those chips with hardware-supported virtualization (AFAIK, OpenBSD doesn't get along with Xen), I'd like to try putting both together on the same box.

Please don't port quickbooks. (3, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575272)

I've never used it from a client perspective, but from a file, network, and multiple user perspective it's really quite a terribly designed program. I sincerly hope that Quickbooks is NOT ported to Linux, and someone else designed a different program that's designed with the Internet and multiple users in mind.

Just to give people some perpsective, quickbooks is used by a lot of small businesses. The problem is that these people need to access the books from more than one place. Usually home, and the office. Also, it's quite common for multiple people to want to use the same quickbooks file at the same time. Or, say you want to give access to your quickbooks files to your accountant. Quickbooks was never really designed for the Internet age, and it shows. People solve these problems with ad-hoc solutions like emailing quickbooks files back and forth. Please don't port quickbooks to linux, let this crappy program die the horrible death it deserves.

Re:Please don't port quickbooks. (3, Interesting)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575700)

Quickbooks and Quicken are the reason I left windows in the first place. Both programs were mature products years ago, but did intuit leave well enough alone and move on to something else? nope. All the upgrades that have come out in the past few years basically enable more ways to spy on your stuff and get more of your money through vendor-lock-in. They are bells and whistles that mostly get in the way, clutter the desktop and intrude on real work. I mean they've got freakin' pop-ups for chris'sakes. If I wanted popups I'd use IE, not quickbooks. And their .qif format, which is great to work with, easy to understand etc, has been abandoned by their move lock-up your information and force you into their product for ever.

I made the mistake a couple years ago of upgrading Quickbooks one too many times and discovered too late that they had eliminated the exporting of MY information. Its locked in there forever. They have annual sunset policies, eliminated data exporting and keep jacking up the prices for what is free tax table informatino from the government. When I stopped using their payroll tax table subscription and began using my own spreadsheets (tired of paying every year for that free government information) guess what! The payroll calculations, using user-entered tax tables were incorrect. The tax table information was correct -- THE CALCULATIONS WERE WRONG! As in 1+1 != 2. seriously. (sorry to shout. I obviously care deeply about this).

So now I must forever maintain a Windows partition on one of my boxen just to maintain a working copy of quickbooks in case I ever need to access some old financial records for my business. Screw them Intuit can have their windows. I will never use another one of their products ever. Do not port quickbooks to linux. I like my free world just fine as it is.

Go GnuCash! [gnucash.org] Check it out. They are close to finally making the GNOME2 port which will bring it to more user desktops. Its a REAL accounting program, not that half-baked quickbooks crap. double entry, invoicing, international support etc. good user community. etc etc etc.


MOD PARENT UP (3, Interesting)

The Slashdotted (665535) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575748)

Quickbook's is one of the worst written programs out there.
It's based of IE 5.5, and is made of swiss cheese.
It requires administive privledges (or local standard user) to check a balance.
The database is propritary, and very easy to corrupt.
It's reporting functions are pathetic at best.
The $3000 "Enterprise Edition" won't work off a DFS share.
You need to buy a new payroll file every year, or a yearly version.

Hell, Microsoft is going to include it's clone of QB in Office for Small Business, and they're more open then Intuit.

Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575335)

What this article seems to be forgetting is that we have free replacements for many of these. Not all of them are perfect, not all of them are complete, but, a significant number of people are content with them, a significant number of the projects are promising, and, well, isn't that remarkable in itself?

Lotus Notes (2, Insightful)

lpcustom (579886) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575339)

C'mon ????Lotus Notes....I wish they would unport it for Windows....I'm forced to use it at work and I hate it. Give us Google Earth for Linux. That needs to be on the list. I set up dual boot on my home PC which is normally just Linux, just so I could get on Google Earth. Before anyone tells me to Wine it, I have tried to and it's just not going to work on my preferred distro. I've heard of spyware, malware, abandonware, shareware, freeware, and all that. Lotus Notes should be labelled crapware.

Outlook! (3, Interesting)

ivoras (455934) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575343)

It looks like that people woting for that list were not big corporate users. In such environments Outlook is immensly popular, especially with management staff, because it's a nice integrated environment for everything from e-mail to group calendars, todo lists and similar organisational features. Of course, all this depends on Exchange servers.

I've heard several times that offices could switch to Linux, and even tolerate OpenOffice, but they simply cannot do without Outlook+Exchange.

Yes, there may be better solutions (such as using separate applications for e-mail and calendaring, possibly web applications) but none are as polished, easy to use and comprehensive in just the areas people like this need.

Re:Outlook! (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575486)

Arent there already linux programs that can pull email from an exchange server?

Re:Outlook! (1)

ivoras (455934) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575657)

I know about Evolution, but when I tried to use it, it was lacking features, slow and AFAIK only played nice with Novell's groupware server.

Re:Outlook! (1)

trinaryai (949870) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575543)

Groupwise already runs in Linux (both server-side and client-side). It handles email, messaging, and calendaring in one application.

Yick (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575703)

Another program I hope is never ported to Linux. I hate outlook in every way there is to hate a program.

Re:Yick (1)

ivoras (455934) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575899)

I hate outlook in every way there is to hate a program.
It's bad, but if something like it were present it WOULD be a killer app for Linux (& other free systems)...

Re:Yick (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575954)

I'd love a good replacement for outlook. The idea of an integrated scheduling, contact, and and email program isn't so bad, though personally I'd prefer a standard for scheduling and contact management that could tie together different programs.

Pointless. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575351)

Porting any of those apps to Linux would be a wasted effort.

First, Linux users are used to free (beer) software. There are a few money-makers running on Linux, but for the most part the software doesn't cost anything except maybe the occasional Paypal donation. Secondly, Linux users are used to Free (speech) software. If the software is not licensed under the GPL (or a GPL-compatible license) there will be hell to pay. I cannot think of any proprietary software that was ported from Windows to Linux and was successful in any sense of the word (I'm sure somebody will counter this will some examples). The GPL is just too entrenched in the Linux software world to allow any competitors. Thirdly, Linux users are more-or-less satisfied with "good enough" Free software; they rarely even consider proprietary software when Free software exists that gets the job done.

I don't think there is a big enough market for proprietary software to make it worth their while. However, I do think there may be a market for "complete solutions". I.e. Adobe could come up with a high-end fully-contained Linux-based photo-editing solution. However, proprietary software (for the most part) is so entrenched on the Windows platform that it would be hard for them to break away from that.

Let's be realistic. Do you really think these Linux users are going to shell out $500 for Photoshop if it gets ported? Most of thse people (VERY BIG GENERALIZATION, but in my experience the truth) are the same people who pirate the Windows version of Photoshop. Granted not every Linux user is RMS or a pimply-faced Microsoft hater, but I just don't think the market is big enough to warrant porting some of these major applications. On the other hand, if there is going to be a market you probably want to be the first player there. Then again, we are entering the 10th year of "Year of Desktop Linux". The more things change the more they stay the same.

Those are just the issues with the Linux mentality. What about the technical issues? There are hundreds of Linux distributions. There are just a few different Windows configurations, mostly compatibile with each other. Linux is still too fragmented to offer the (platform) stability that Windows has. Adobe or Quicken or whoever would probably have i386/i686 binaries, and mabye x86-64 if you're lucky. Granted that covers the majority, but then you have all kinds of package and library dependencies. In Windows you can basically ship a binary and a few DLLs and your product works out of the box (again, a generalization). In Linux a proprietary software application would be difficult to deploy and maintain across more than a few major distros. And then users of other distros would whine about being left out and things not working and whatever other problems they have. Linux is always a moving platform, while Windows offers excellent binary backwards compatibility (at least compared to Linux).

To summarize, I don't think proprietary software will be successful on Linux until the market grows. I don't think the market will grow until proprietary software is successful on Linux. I think this is another "Year of Linux on the Desktop" situation.

Re:Pointless. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575575)

This isn't insightful--this is pure, utter garbage. Nothing more than the same tired old points that Overly Critical Guy (nee bonch) always trots out in these kinds of discussions.

Linux on the desktop is here. Now. All of the supposed "issues" you bring up are non-issues. Get a fucking grip, troll-boy.

Dreaming (0, Flamebait)

nathanh (1214) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575398)

Microsoft Word.

No, really, I'm being honest. If there's one application moreso than any other I want on Linux it's Microsoft Word. None of the word processors on Linux (free or pay-for) have decent enough import/export filters for me to collaborate on documents with Word victims. Unfortunately in my line of work that is a serious limitation and it's basically impossible for them to switch to OpenOffice. It's extra sad because OpenOffice Writer is just fine as a word processor.

I wouldn't mind MYOB either.

Re:Dreaming (2, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575559)

I use OpenOffice and I have yet to find a single Word document that it cant open and read. The formatting may not be pixel accurate to what Word would display but so what, its accurate enough that I can understand what the document is saying.
As for exports, I can save in PDF.
Even where I do need to save as a Word document, I have yet to find an OpenOffice document that, when exported as a Word document, cant be opened, read and used properly by Word.

Someone should make a site hosting a pile of testcase documents in word format that, when loaded into OpenOffice, do not read & render properly, preferably with screenshots of what they look like in Word. Such a thing would enable the OpenOffice team to improve their import filters to render the documents correctly.

Also, someone should post documents (in OpenOffice format/ODF) that, when exported to a Word document with the latest filters, are unusable in Word (along with a screenshot of what they look like in Word to demonstrate that they are unusable). Such documents would enable the OpenOffice team to improve their export filters to produce better output.

Re:Dreaming (2, Insightful)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575718)

Here's how I deal with this. I use OO.o and send them in native (.odf?) format. THen I let the word victims figure it out. When they email back that they can't read my file, I wait 24 hours before sending an rtf. Then I politely suggest that they upgrade to more modern software that can handle this format. ;)

And the reality in my little world is that most people are running a couple years behind on their Word updates anyway and so the filters work fine.

crossover office NT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575880)


What do all those programs have in common? (3, Insightful)

gnarlin (696263) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575412)

That's right, they are all propriatery. The groups who use this software are so bound into it's usage that the very idea of trying to substitude one of these programs for a Free one makes people scared. It won't matter how closely Free software can mimic those programs, as long as they aren't *EXACTLY* the same, they won't touch'em.

Also this article sounds way to much like begging to me.
"please sir, can we have these program ported! Please!". "All our money will belong to you if you do!" etc. Why do we need these programs so badly? Might it be because now there is some value to be found in using Free software?

I'm sorry if I sound a bit bitter about this. I worked at a small firm where everyone was using popular propriatery software, always without any proper licenses. If I talked about it or sugested a substitude (gimp for photoshop) people would just say that it didn't matter and that everyone did it, so why shouldn't they.
If people were actually forced to pay for all the software that they used (that they can't get for free legally) there might be a serious effort put into trying alternatives.

Just let me ask you one question.
How often in the last month have you been asked for a copy of a propriatery program that you know you aren't legally allowed to copy and distribute to others?

Thinking to buy out CodeWeavers? (3, Informative)

Cycon (11899) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575435)

I can't find the link on their site, but CodeWeaver's Crossover Office lists almost verbatim the apps from the dropdown in the survey [novell.com] among their "supported" apps when you're installing new software.

Ximian was a small outfit and Novell bought them out, maybe they're considering a similar move with CodeWeavers?

In any case, for comparison here's a list [codeweavers.com] of top most wanted apps for Crossover to support next.

Re:Thinking to buy out CodeWeavers? (1)

T-Ranger (10520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575788)

Novell has already made not-insignificant investement in OOo. One of the value added features in their various commercial distros is a Novell branded OOo 2.0, with things like commercial, "Microsoft compatable" fonts. Long term, OOo is the way to go, in general. Yes, a migration phase may be necessary.

In the last few months, Novell has announced layoffs. They built up a bunch of fat and extra capacity in developers; I cant see them purchasing a new team of developers, which has a product with a hopefully short lifespan. Partnering with them, and selling a Novell branded Crossover is a different thing entirely, but that isnt something that Novell typically does.

A month ago I would have said Continuum (1)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575556)

A month ago, I would have said Continuum [subspace.net] (formerly called Subspace)... a wonderful free (as in beer) massively multiplayer online game, the oldest running one in history. Fast paced, extremely addictive, excellent gameplay.

But some nice people hacked WINE and got it working [minegoboom.com] (see also WineHQ Notes [winehq.org] ), something I've been waiting for for years.

I'm now thoroughly wasting all my time in this game again, without the guilty feeling of booting Windows for it! Screenshot [halo43.com]

Visio (3, Informative)

NullProg (70833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575728)

Isn't going to happen until Microsoft starts being a platform neutral software company again. I have an older pre-Microsoft version and it rocked. Too bad Microsoft killed (oops, integrated) it with Office.

Dia http://www.gnome.org/projects/dia/ [gnome.org] as replacement works for me. Windows port available.

Hey Microsoft /. patrollers, ask upper management if its worth selling me nothing or selling me a $40-$100 standalone version of Visio for Linux? I'm not a thief and I won't upload my copy.


World of Warcraft (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575815)

Starwars Battlefront
Battlefield 2
Age of Empires III

My List (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575875)

1.) Autocad
2.) MapInfo (yeah I know I can use GRASS, don't start in on that)
3.) ESRI's ArcGIS
4.) WinAMP (XMMS is not the same. I want the visualizations & everything else, don't get me wrong though, I'd love to see Amarok ported to Windows too)

This would save my company tons of money in Windows licenses.

Almost everything else that I would find useful (sans games) has already been ported or there is a better native Linux version.


Finale (1)

iswm (727826) | more than 8 years ago | (#14575919)

I really wish Finale would get proted to Linux. A good scoring program is really the only thing I miss from my Windows days. Lily Pond is nice, but it just doesn't cut it, and doesn't really do what Finale does. I'm sure many other composers and music people out there would agree.

Here's to hoping...

Rhino (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14575980)

I would love to have Rhino (A 3D surface modeler) run on Linux.
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