You've got to give to get
I really need to start a link list at some point, as there are lots of great things out there on the web. Sometimes someone won't take the time to read something unless they've seen it at more than once place, then they get curious about what the fuss is about.
Unfortunately I never get around to doing what I say I'm going to on the blog. However, if I did have a link list, I'd be linking to Aseigo's 'How to Kill Open Source on the Desktop?'. Not because I really agree with where he takes it, but because I like the questions he's asking.
His argument basically boils down to the fact that by porting Open Source software to Windows, you disincentive people from going over to Linux in order to get those applications, and additionally deprive the OSS Desktops from those who would switch and would then build the community.
There's some merit there, but I get the feeling this is coming from a guy who is working hard on seeing Open Source Desktops grow, seeing his compatriots working hard to see Open Source on other platforms growing, and is rankling a bit because it's not matching up with his agenda.
There's merit to that too, but I feel as though he's both overstating the importance of some of these projects and trying to resolve a chicken-and-the-egg problem without being realistic about where he's starting from.
There's an old adage that says, "You have to give to get" which seems appropriate. I also think he's underestimating just how entrenched Windows is, and their lead in some areas. There's a tendancy to think of your pet as the equal of its competitor, and the competitor just happens to be ahead.
Linux and OS X are not on anything resembling an equal footing with Windows at this point, so you're going to have to give to get whereas your competitor may not have to. I agree that it's 'all about applications', but would counter that in this case one is more likely to use an alternative platform at home if the apps you're using at work, and that you like, are available for whatever other platform you wish you could run. I could go on, but most of that is summed up in Rhapsody in Yellow (which incidentally has been dethroned as the longest post on DrunkenBlog).
Citing Apple in the context he does worries me. Apple isn't exactly the poster-child for creating share, and many of their decisions regarding the iApps have been because they didn't really have any other choice. For the health of the platform and development community, in an ideal situation Apple wouldn't be making some of the software they are.
However, while I think his main FireFox argument is somewhat of a straw man argument (it completely ignores things like Opera, as well as just how small FireFox's share actually is, and acts as though it's saved Windows), FireFox shows off another part of his argument starkly... namely that resources have a habit of going towards the biggest share.
I like FireFox a lot. I use it all the time, but I wouldn't quite say I'm an advocate of it on the Mac, and completely understand why others might choose to use Safari, OmniWeb or Chimera. I can also understand why people would choose to use it, it has some huge strengths, like it's extensions.
On the whole though, FireFox is just 'good' on the Mac, whereas it is 'great' on Linux and freaking 'outstanding' on Windows. Seriously. In terms of polish, speed and integration... FireFox on the PC is a triumph, whereas on the Mac it still very much feels like a work in progress. A work-in-progress with points of glory, but still a work in progress.
Thunderbird is the exact same way: if you like it on the Mac, you'll be in awe of it on Windows. This isn't anything underhanded, there are just many more people contributing on the Windows side. Yes, it kind of sucks and can be a little annoying, but that's also part of the deal. You have to give to get.
Posted by drunkenbatmanDecember 17, 2004, at 11:30 PM
Comments (6)
Posted by: denny at December 18, 2004 03:12 AM
regarding firefox... i've tried all the mac browsers over the years. icab, camino, firefox, mozilla, opera, omniweb, and a couple of others. i've always gone back to safari... until firefox 1.0.
with extensions such as the sage newsreader, sessionsaver, fireftp, bug-me-not as well as the osX friendly themes, i'm now running firefox fulltime and have been for 3 weeks. with the themes it looks like a cross between omniweb/safari and loads pages at about the same speed as safari (i'm on dialup). it has crashed more often than i'd like but not too bad.
my point, i guess, is that with extensions and a little gui tweeking firefox is, for me, THE BROWSER.
Posted by: Melkor at December 18, 2004 05:42 AM
I don't think it's really all about the applications any more, if it ever was. It's about momentum and mindshare. Oh yes, ask people why they don't use Macs and they'll tell you it's because there aren't many applications for the Mac. But when you ask them what kind of applications they need, and then point out that there are plenty of options for that on the Mac, they either revert to the money argument or just admit it's because they don't want to risk switching to something different.
The point is that switching OSes is not like switching brands of toothpaste, not only because of issues with transferring data, but also because computers can require very specific bits of knowledge and training. I think that if we want more users to switch, we need to make sure that everything on the computer can either be done with their existing skillsets, or is intuitive enough not to need specific skills. Then, perhaps more importantly, we need to show them that that is the case, and that switching OSes doesn't have to be a big ordeal. It reminds me of the old Steve Jobs quote about when he was at NeXT: it's not enough to make something 30% better than your competitors; you have to make it 100-200% better before they'll switch. That's the kind of barrier we're facing, and if we can't make products that much better than Windows, all we can do is try to lower the amount of effort required to move to something else. Again, to some extent it doesn't matter if this effort is real or perceived: as long as people think it's hard to switch, they won't.
Posted by: Erik Hollensbe at December 18, 2004 06:48 AM
Actually the reasons he argues against windows for are the reasons that I switched from free unix desktops to the mac.
It has the OSS integration I need as I am first a unix geek, and a slick GUI lover second. Quite simply, Apple's platform hasn't intrigued me since the early 90's (mostly because I could play King's Quest on an Apple-IIc in the library, and could break into a BASIC interpreter - great time waster after the bus drops you off) until about a year ago when I played with it at OSCON, started a terminal, ssh'd into my own machine at home and fired up ircII, and everything "just worked". After talking to others, I realized that the only special thing Apple had done was put the terminal icon on the Dock, where Unix geeks would expect it. :) That little dock icon got me to plunk down for a shiny new PB 15" Aluminum last March.
I am never going back to configuring X, dealing with the horrible performance of KDE and GNOME, or any of that other crap ever again. I'm not considering the XServe either - I really don't see the benefit when I can get better hardware and run FreeBSD on it which has more advantages for the work I do. I play my games on Windows. I hope you guys see where I'm going here.
In my opinion, the only thing "holding back" OSS on the desktop is the bloatedness of it's community, which is leading to a "I've got this fringe feature that I'd like to put in a library by itself that's been done 400 times in 300 other libraries", and then you have 20 desktop applications that use all of them. Windows "DLL hell" is trivial in comparison to the library requirements of GNOME and KDE these days, and I'm leaving out the application requirements.
The only people that I see hugging Linux on the desktop are what I like to call the "ooh... themes" crowd, that care more about how an application looks than it functions - I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the Mac community is almost as bad. One site I read, a guy put up a posting and solicited comments on several highly similar application icons, because "he couldn't pick". Maybe it's just me, but when you're discussing a 2 pixel thick line that denotes a smile on a large icon, maybe that time could have been spent improving your program's operation or interface design. Just a thought.
The reason I use the mac has nothing to do with aqua or "lickable" anything. It's function far outweighs it's form, but when all you hear about is it's form, it's hard to bother looking into the function.
Maybe this reflection has rather strong inferred overtones that I'm trying to communicate. Maybe it doesn't. :)
Posted by: Chris at December 20, 2004 02:29 AM
I think the original article has some merits, but in the end unless machines are sold in bulk at Best Buy for years on cheap emachines, we won't be seeing massive linux on the desktop.
Would we want to though? Would we want to have granny call us at 2 am in the morning because X isn't working and she wants to play solitaire?
Oh ya:
s/chimera/camino
Posted by: mennonot at December 23, 2004 02:50 PM
As a long-time Linux wanabee user who actually uses Windows and a full oss suite, I completely agree with Cap'n Hector's mindshare argument. Not only do I see SourceForge as my first stop for any of my software needs, I also recommend it to anyone else looking for any sort of software. And as a result of my familiarity with the site I've installed a number of web oss packages for small NGO's over the last year who otherwise would never have been able to afford similiar propietary software. Never underestimate the power of mindshare.
And here's my favorite hard-nosed drunken quote quotable quote of the day:
"There's a tendancy to think of your pet as the equal of its competitor, and the competitor just happens to be ahead."
Followed up by a nice reality check from Chris:
"Would we want to have granny call us at 2 am in the morning because X isn't working and she wants to play solitaire?"
I haven't read that linked article yet, but there's something I'd point out on the porting-OSS-stuff to other platforms…it increases their mindshare, and encourages users to think about OSS solutions. The more things they get from SourceForge, for example, the more likely they are to look for things on SourceForge, and they'll start noticing that many of the cool apps are also on Linux, and that they appear to be even easier to install than on Windows, and (if they read forums) might realize they work better there, encouraging a switch.
That scenario only applies to some people…ones who are used to finding and installing software, but the point is valid.
Besides, I'm not sure that many end-user types switch to Linux…that is, make a choice to choose Linux as their OS over Mac OS or Windows. I suspect that there will be more penetration of Linux among first-time computer buyers who purchase the extremely inexpensive Linux machines that are starting to pop up, and that there might be trickle-up penetration as these users have fewer issues and talk about it…to other people that don't have computers, who go and buy…
Every time I've tried out Linux GUIs I have been less than impressed. Mac users may complain about Aqua and Metal, but Linux has GTK, GTK+, KDE, Gnome, and several other widget kits, and most apps have next-to-no usability testing…cryptic options, too many options, etc.
That seems to have been part of what has kept Apple around…the GUI. Recently it's changed a lot, and I'm not going to go into the arguments about it, but Apple still seems to be designing more intuitive applications than the competition…for the most part having logical, well-thought-out GUIs that are fairly discoverable and software/hardware that works more often than not.
I hope that all made sense…I'm a bit tired. :-)