Getting into open source

[Pooky]

I have used both OpenOffice and MicrosoftOffice and have to say I prefer Microsoft.

 

[fskmh]

The problem with open source operating systems is their lack of support when it comes ot running win32s binaries. Sure there is WINE, but what I would like is a free and open source windows. This is where ReactOS comes into play, pity it is still pre alpha in v0.3 but when it gets into the final stages I am sure M$ are gonna have to rethink their strategy.

So your problem with open source is that it lacks support for closed source apps?

Thats my point - open source needs to shift focus from making open source apps for proprietary OSes to making full on open source versions of those proprietary OSes they are aiming at with these apps.

It's called thinking outside of the box.

Open source doesn't need to do squat except continue providing functional alternatives to patent encumbered, proprietary apps. Ditto for the OS.

 

[Pooky]

Ehwhatnow? Sorry, I don't completely understand what you mean (albeit that could have something to do with the time). Could you explain what exactly you mean a bit more, please?

I think he is saying that open source developers should focus more on developing apps that work on all os's?

 

[frozt01100101]

While I tend to agree with some OO apps, M$ Office 2007 is way ahead of even OO3.

IMHO, this article is far from complete. What about Apache, MySQL?
They have changed the way we look about the internet forever. Whilst at it, add the PHP language.

I think that the writer aimed this article at the average desktop user, to inform them of the cool apps which are available to them without the need to install Linux. As to PHP...well, let's just say I'll welcome you to the new age when you join us ;-)

 

[frozt01100101]

I think he is saying that open source developers should focus more on developing apps that work on all os's?

This is called cross-platform capability, and a surprisingly large number of existing open source applications can do this. This ability is because the underlying technologies they make use of are cross-platform (examples such as the GTK and Qt windowing toolkits, Boost C++ library, libpurple instant messaging library, OpenAL for sound, et cetera), and thus the code which is written is inherently cross-platform. But I would still just like clarification from the post author as to whether this is what he intended to communicate.

 

[kingmonty]

I think Microsoft should include Office with your Windows Installation... The price you pay for the OS and Office is insanely high... Rather put the 2 together and sell it cheaper...

I personally downloaded Open Office the other day and Im using it atm...

And risk more anti trust lawsuits?

 

[sn3rd]

I'll never understand the logic of some people. If you want to use a particular operating system, then you should be happy to use the programs that work (and were designed for) that operating system, bar a few killer appz that you might need (many graphics, video, science and office productivity applications).

I always get people asking me why Linux developers aren't working harder on getting Windows appz to work.

I'll have to admit, Microsoft Office is a lot more slick than OpenOffice is at the moment, but that's because OpenOffice aims more for functionality (IMO). I don't mind using either.

And with regards to making open source operating systems more like Windows... I think you're missing the point of open source operating systems altogether! Linux was not (and never will be) developed in order to become an open source Windows. Linux offers so much more than that! People who complain that Linux isn't good enough for the mass market are the ones who don't understand that Linux isn't necessarily TRYING to be for the mass market. The distributions that are moving toward that are not very plentiful. Because if Linux were working toward being for the mass market, they'd have to tone down a lot of the power of Linux. Customization and bloat alone would take Linux back to the stone age. Why do things sometimes seem incomplete in Linux? Well it's because the point of those things is often for the user to customize it themselves. In that sense, the developers were doing you a favour by not bloating the software too much, making it EASIER to make the necessary modifications (without having to first undo someone else's modifications).

 

[sn3rd]

This is called cross-platform capability, and a surprisingly large number of existing open source applications can do this. This ability is because the underlying technologies they make use of are cross-platform (examples such as the GTK and Qt windowing toolkits, Boost C++ library, libpurple instant messaging library, OpenAL for sound, et cetera), and thus the code which is written is inherently cross-platform. But I would still just like clarification from the post author as to whether this is what he intended to communicate.

Not to mention just-in-time code like Java.

 

[Rouxenator]

So your problem with open source is that it lacks support for closed source apps?

Exactly, the only way to put pressure on M$ is to have something like ReactOS succeed. Then you can use any win32 binarries (and the world is full of them) on an OS that is free and open. No one will buy windows then.

 

[frozt01100101]

Exactly, the only way to put pressure on M$ is to have something like ReactOS succeed. Then you can use any win32 binarries (and the world is full of them) on an OS that is free and open. No one will buy windows then.

So did you even do any measure of research before making this statement of yours? Also, are you perchance a programmer on a Win32 environment or in any manner aware of the complexity which underlies it?

 

[pkid]

Exactly, the only way to put pressure on M$ is to have something like ReactOS succeed. Then you can use any win32 binarries (and the world is full of them) on an OS that is free and open. No one will buy windows then.

If you are an enterprise you need management capabilities etc that Microsoft does really well. It is more than just having the programs run you have to be able to easily and efficiently manage your environment...

 

[<moLe>]

Thats a joke right?

If you are an enterprise you need management capabilities etc that Microsoft does really well. It is more than just having the programs run you have to be able to easily and efficiently manage your environment...

hahahahahahaha...whatever..u need stability..stability, u need security sure microsofts implementation of active directory is okay..but do you honestly think that its is microsofts idea? no..exchange is pathetic and over priced, their server packages is insanely expensive. Only admin's who utilize these packages are either just plain lazy, or over gulible to towards the microsofts massive marketing campaigns. And sure, setting up a linux server is more hassle, but sure as hell pays of in the end.

 

[pkid]

hahahahahahaha...whatever..u need stability..stability, u need security sure microsofts implementation of active directory is okay..but do you honestly think that its is microsofts idea? no..exchange is pathetic and over priced, their server packages is insanely expensive. Only admin's who utilize these packages are either just plain lazy, or over gulible to towards the microsofts massive marketing campaigns. And sure, setting up a linux server is more hassle, but sure as hell pays of in the end.

You are forgetting about the ease of integration between the various Microsoft products as well. Push e-mail etc works really well with my Windows Mobile phone and Outlook and Outlook Web Access. Windows Authentication allowing for single sign on to an Intranet etc is pretty cool too. They have some nice management tools that make managing thousands of desktops and servers efficient. Calling admins who want to be more efficient and productive lazy and gullible is a little strong and a huge generalization.

Their stuff is not perfect and it is not free but it is not as bad as all the open source and Linux fanboys make it out to be. I would much rather be running Windows at work than Linux...

 

[Rouxenator]

So did you even do any measure of research before making this statement of yours? Also, are you perchance a programmer on a Win32 environment or in any manner aware of the complexity which underlies it?

Firstly, I do not need to do research -ever- because when I say something it is as good as tha law, mkay ?

OK then, so have a look at http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp and you will the majority of OSes in use are windows based ones. That is because the majority of applications out there runs on windows. So just think how nice it would be if there was an open source alternative to windows on which we can run all these applications ?

That is why I say open source apps is only half way there. Something like ReactOS is the real answer. There are a lot of opensource apps for windows based OSes, but there is no opensource alternative for windows.

I can understand if this seems like higher grade stuff to you, so I am not expecting you to understand.

 

[sn3rd]

If you are an enterprise you need management capabilities etc that Microsoft does really well. It is more than just having the programs run you have to be able to easily and efficiently manage your environment...

+1

You are forgetting about the ease of integration between the various Microsoft products as well. Push e-mail etc works really well with my Windows Mobile phone and Outlook and Outlook Web Access. Windows Authentication allowing for single sign on to an Intranet etc is pretty cool too. They have some nice management tools that make managing thousands of desktops and servers efficient. Calling admins who want to be more efficient and productive lazy and gullible is a little strong and a huge generalization.

Their stuff is not perfect and it is not free but it is not as bad as all the open source and Linux fanboys make it out to be. I would much rather be running Windows at work than Linux...

+1 again

hahahahahahaha...whatever..u need stability..stability, u need security sure microsofts implementation of active directory is okay..but do you honestly think that its is microsofts idea? no..exchange is pathetic and over priced, their server packages is insanely expensive. Only admin's who utilize these packages are either just plain lazy, or over gulible to towards the microsofts massive marketing campaigns. And sure, setting up a linux server is more hassle, but sure as hell pays of in the end.

1) Whether they come up with it or not is irrelevant. It's how well their implementation works.
2) Cost is irrelevant in this argument. It's how well their implementation works.
3) Often it is more cost effective (and usually easier and more streamlined) to implement a Microsoft product on a server because of existing legacy services and service requirements.
4) Setting up a Debian server is easier than setting up Server 2003 (for them to be at comparable stability and security levels).

 

[fskmh]

Exactly, the only way to put pressure on M$ is to have something like ReactOS succeed. Then you can use any win32 binarries (and the world is full of them) on an OS that is free and open. No one will buy windows then.

Free Windows or not, it would still be encumbered by software patents. I have no issue with ReactOS, but directing efforts into a platform for running closed source win32 binaries would be the antithesis of what open source is about. It's not just about free as in beer, and if you don't get that then you're wasting your time in this thread.

 

[TheRoDent]

It's about code, not the price.

 

[chubster]

ReactOS works on the same principle than software like VmWare, if you want windows applications to run on open source then use Wine, not Cedega.

 

[<moLe>]

You are forgetting about the ease of integration between the various Microsoft products as well. Push e-mail etc works really well with my Windows Mobile phone and Outlook and Outlook Web Access. Windows Authentication allowing for single sign on to an Intranet etc is pretty cool too. They have some nice management tools that make managing thousands of desktops and servers efficient. Calling admins who want to be more efficient and productive lazy and gullible is a little strong and a huge generalization.

Their stuff is not perfect and it is not free but it is not as bad as all the open source and Linux fanboys make it out to be. I would much rather be running Windows at work than Linux...

Work on multiple platforms on a daily basis, "efficient" and microsoft doesnt really go hand in hand with each other. here is a list of linux alternatives to the stuff u mentioned.

1)push e-mail (exchange like solution- Commu****te Pro 4.1
2)Active Directory - On the Linux side we'll use libraries nss_ldap and pam_ldap (running on LDAP protocoL)

Microsoft, on the other hand, is trying harder than ever to lock in customers by extending their proprietary technologies..look I can continue with my list, point being that there is nothing at least server side that that Linux cant do better...sure requires some skill to set it up, but honestly thats what they where supposed to be teaching the IT guys back at university or college. But unfortunately what we have in SA is to many idiots running around with they're MSCE, to dumb witted and lazy to look for alternatives, so brain washed by they're Microsoft course that did little more than indoctrinate them.
Could go into licensing costs, tell you how apache kick the **** out of microsofts IIS, even start comparing the security capabilities of the two..and all

 

[<moLe>]

2) Cost is irrelevant in this argument. It's how well their implementation works.

Maybe isn't, But in real life the price is a factor for the medium and smaller companies.

3) Often it is more cost effective (and usually easier and more streamlined) to implement a Microsoft product on a server because of existing legacy services and service requirements.

Sadly true

4) Setting up a Debian server is easier than setting up Server 2003 (for them to be at comparable stability and security levels).

True, doing the more advanced stuff could get tricky though