Open Source Ain't Just for Linux, Folks

It begins with too much stress on no cost, non-open source options. Maybe it improves, however, there are too many items to read to persist when it begins so poorly

I met Raven Zachary over at the Open Source Journal. He's one of the people who believe open source isn't just for Linux. I attempted to explain that if Linux didn't exist, I didn't believe we would have an open source community. Oh, maybe a Free Software Foundation would exist, but how vibrant a communty would it be?

Without Linux (the kernel), we would have the BSDs, and I believe Hurd would have been ready by now (I am of the opinion that the slow development on Hurd is partly related to the fact that Linux is a good enough kernel with the right license. People don't tend to make as much effort to create an alternative to something that is already good enough for them. Note that I don't say it is wrong, just that it's natural).

So I think there would be somewhat of a community. I don't think it would be so large and vibrant as it is now. Linux arrived at the right place at the right time, and acted as a catalyst, quickly crystallising a wide community around it. I don't think it would have worked the same way if such a kernel had appeared, let's say even one or two years later.

So while it's true that Open Source isn't just for Linux, without Linux there just wouldn't be as much Open Source as there is, whether for Linux or not.

tadelste: While the ' open source isn't just for Linux' stick sounds good in theory, I find these guys with one foot in both camps... disturbing (or is that just disturbed :)).

I am a quivering tower of jello on this issue. The rational (albeit small) part of me says, yes...free is free for all, regardless of their stup...I mean choice to use Windows. The knee jerk, mean widdle kid part of me says sod 'em...If you want to use open source software, use it in the environment in which it was created, and I am guessing that environment is unix in one form or another.

I guess I tend to be a bit childish in my thinking, but I believe the Windoze World has had everything they have handed to them on a silver disk...And I DO resent that. Logical...? No, but primeval and satisfying.

helios

It's a natural consequence of predatory practices used against people who prefer a technology used by a minority of people while the bully attempts to kill it.

So like, the big kid took my toys away and he will break them if he can't have them.

Like that.

And..because of the business app focus...left out one of the really popular (in a certain set, at least) open source/free/what-have-you Windows-only, won't run under Linux apps: VirtualDub for video editing.

In my view, libre apps for proprietary platforms, mainly Winders, is a stepping stone for the non-techies who prefer the gradual approach. Start with Firefox & OOo on WIndows, then start migrating to GNU/Linux. In my early stages of learning about libre software philosophy, I would have said it was o.k. to continue using proprietary software. With knowledge comes understanding. I still think it's o.k. to migrate gradually, though I believe the complete switch is ultimately better in the long-term. However, migrating to a completely libre platform is a worthy goal.

Even if you don't buy into the free software philosophy, and identify more with the 'open source' camp, GNU/Linux or one of the BSDs is a much better choice, from a technological perspective, than Windows.

dc -

There's another good argument for free software on proprietary platforms -- specifically Mac and Windows.

Let's face it: free software is not always kind to the user. One could almost substitute not often for not always. Much of it has been developed by developers with little meaningful input from anybody who was not a developer. If free software authors are serious about going after Windows/Mac users they will have to compete with people who have paid a lot more attention to such niceties. I don't think it's a coincidence that two of the best and most popular free software projects -- Firefox and OpenOffice -- strive to compete in Windows space. For that matter, I wonder how much the presence of Gimp for Windows has helped to spur the Gimp guys?

The power of freedom + a little spit and polish makes for a powerful combination.

Given my budget restraints, I've never really been able to afford the glitzy, glamorous applications that many people use. Maybe I'm just not privileged enough to be spoiled by spit and polish. However, I do think your point is a good one.