Slashdot

"Lack of new exciting software"? Try xgl/compiz! It's the most exciting software I've seen since a windowing environment!

If you find there isn't enough software for Linux, you haven't browsed your repositories. I'm not saying that "I miss software X" isn't valid but if you think there isn't enough new things to try in general, you are not trying very hard !

Summary: I like Outlook, but its not available for Linux. Evolution doesn't work enough like it, and Microsoft is unlikely to release a Linux version of Outlook. Boo-hoo. Why can't we all get along?

I was kind of hoping for something a bit broader than one example heaped with a few generalities...

Apache, mosaic, jabber, etc were started on *nix. But these are server apps. There are many more desktop apps that were started on Windows and then FINALLY ported to *nix. What it will take is to make Linux a competitive place for desktop. Hopefully, as Google moves their apps on over linxu and forces other companies to compete on the same platform, then things may change.

"I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the closed source community"

I believe it is time for the closed source community to grow up and find some common ground with Linux.

What is he talking about? Linux doesn't need new or exciting features, it needs further usability improvements and for the products currently available to mature. Feature bloat is not something I wish to see in the GNU/Linux world - function over flash has always been the mantra and it is definitely not outdated.

When there is a gap for new programs, they will be created. When someone needs to get a task done and there isn't a tool, he will scratch that itch - eventually, if enough people have the itch it becomes widespread. I also have no idea where he is coming from about this release gap between windows and linux, unless we're talking about games which is a whole other can of worms.

And finally, has he checked out XGL/compiz? That is some bleeding edge technology that is unmatched currently and definitely some cool stuff to play with. Basically I don't understand what this guy's beef is and how it relates to closed/open source - GNU/linux has all the software it needs being developed and the few closed source vendors who don't want to play nice and port are not the fault of the open vision.

Of course, I am basing this entirely on the summary so who knows. *shrug*

are you kidding me? most innovations now start at the linux level. Aero? Vista eye candy? compiz did it a year BEFORE not AFTER. Workspaces? windows still doesn't have that. all the new desktop usability comes from linux, while windows kept the windows 95 desktop going for 10+ years with minor changes. linux thinks AHEAD not 3 year ago like closed source. OPEN means you can risk new ideas, while CLOSED means risks can rouin you. I chose to take bold new innovations out for a spin.

Ironically it's the pro applications now that port first. Things like Maya are more and more focasing on Linux. I doubt you'll see most consumer applications paying much attention to Linux anytime soon but the professionals are adopting it faster than any group. The 3D realm likes the power and stability. Photoshop is still dragging it's feet as far as I know but but there are plenty of higher end 3d animating and modelling apps availible and they tend to be released before even the Mac versions.

So, what he's saying is that Linux people aren't trying hard enough to make closed software available on Linux? ...

I almost feel like Obviousman here. Linux can't accomodate closed-source software easily BECAUSE IT'S CLOSED AND THUS IMPOSSIBLE TO INTEGRATE SEAMLESSLY INTO OTHER APPLICATIONS. Linux has no obligations whatsoever when it comes to compatibility -- they've published all their docs, spotty though they may be, and they use standards. Microsoft, Adobe, and now-defunct Macromedia have done neither, with some exceptions such as SWF and PDF formats.

If this guy wants more integration, he should stop bitching at Linux, which has an open kernel API; he should stop bitching at GNU, which is completely and totally open. He should be directing his trolling at Microsoft, who has made no efforts to make their software work on top of Linux kernels.

Perhaps some of this is because there does not appear to be a clear, simple to follow outline cooperative for companies to design for the open source operating system. Arguably this is because of the perceived need to keep things "open," however, I feel it's time for Linux to grow up and find some kind of common ground with the closed source community. I am a firm believer that both parties could learn a lot from each other; unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon."

Actually, this is exactly what I have heard from a number of software vendors. I review software and gadgets for a few web sites. One of my testing criteria, particularly for hardware, is if the hardware is Linux-compatible. When it comes to software I always ask if there are any plans to offer a Linux version of the software. The answer that I hear the most often is in regards to a lack of available resources, which I certainly can understand since I review a lot of software form independent companies. But when I question further about asking Linux coders to help with the conversion, the major of companies that have shown an interest in a Linux port say that they've attempted to do so, but the programmers that they approached expect the software to be open-sourced if the company is to get their help. I've even had some developers of software that's geared more towards a particular science admit that they think there would be a huge demand on their software for Linux, but the "requirement" by Linux coders that the software is open-sourced killed the prospect of releasing a Linux version.

As much as I'd like to brush that off as "just an excuse", look at a lot of the replies here on Slashdot about Linux and open-source and you'll quickly see that HE'S RIGHT! I love open-source (or at the very least open standards) just as much as anyone else here and I use it whenever feasible. But there is definitely an assumption among a lot of Linux users that if it's available on Linux the course code has got to be made available or else it doesn't belong on Linux, like it's some kind of plague.

Now, I'll confess that this attitude has been diminishing as Linux eeks its way into the mainstream. The attitude is shifting away from open source and more towards open standards. But there is still a big movement and big preconception that "Linux == Open Source" and "Closed Source != Welcome On Linux".

NOT flaming here, folks. Just relaying what I've been told by software developers and what I've seen here on /. Sorry if you don't like it or don't believe it, but that doesn't make it less true. Or at least, that doesn't it make it less true in the eyes of software developers.

No coherent vision with a bunch of competing vendors. One target needs to emerge with the kind of support that Windows has down the whole stack. I've been hearing about Linux taking over this and that for 6 years now, I only see it replacing UNIX.

Woohoo, I get to recycle my +5 comment [slashdot.org] from last night

Proprietary software, as long as it doesn't make the system less free, is not necessarily bad.

For example a proprietary document system that uses open formats and has open APIs does very little to harm the user and potentially fills a niche that cannot be served by free software very well (eg handles certain legal compliance issues, which requires expensive insurance and research).

As long as you *could* write your own software to replace bits of the system, or interoperate with the system, then you dont necessarily have to for the benefit to be very real indeed.

As has been stated, this article is nothing more than "I want outlook on Linux".

If you take a good look at real world closed source software (ie sold by companies not based in Redmond, WA) you will find most of the top app providers already selling Linux versions of their products. For many, this was a no brainer as they already had Unix (of various flavours) versions of their key products.
Then you get companies like IBM who are (IMHO) actually looking at replacing windows with Linux as the key dev platform. For example, if you look as some of the WebSphere range of products. Until fairly recently, there was always a need for at leat one windows system to act as the dev host. Now, with the switch to Eclipse based dev tools they can also use linux instead of Windows in this key area. Ok, they are not betting the farm on linux succeeding in this area but with each release the need to use windows grows less and less.

Finally,
  We don't need Outlook on Linux. What we need is a decent email/groupware client that will interact seamlessly with MS Exchange that provides all the functionality of Outlook but without the underlying problems that it has.

  What bugs me about Office 2003 is that outlook had lost its ability to export the account settings. What you have to use is the office exporter which produces a file which is a horrible missmash of Binary & XML (no the binary is not wrapped in XML) that only the office imported can read. I know this is part of the M$ lock in policy but previous versions of lookout so that other email clients can read them easily. So now, you have to import them manually. I get really annoyed with M$ when the go on about their interoperability policy. It if nothing more than pure FUD.

 

mazing lack of new and exciting software

Yes, sire, I shalt bow before thee. Am I alone to think such opinions come from the usual thinking-to-be professionals who don't actually use those "exciting" software but find it fashionable to talk about having it and using it and knowing it, etc. ? What is "exciting software" anyway ? There are of course applications which have some purpose and are designed nicer, slicker than the others, some even are more usable than others, some are more professional, etc. Still, "new and exciting software" is a so broad and bland formulation that it makes the whole opinion unworthy of any serious consideration.

Apart from the above, OSes other than Windows happen to have very many good applications for a wide variety of goals (and yes, the job and the goal is what defines what software to use, we don't just use a software because it's "exciting" and "new", unless the special family of what I usually call toy apps), and surprisingly (well, not for us) they are usually developed in a much faster pace than in the case of some other OS. Also, needs of the crowds and recognition of some missing niche software (and the implementation of it) usually happens more frequently and faster in the non-Windows world.

If just talking about the number of maintained and developed apps, and the number of areas these applications target, then Linux is better performing in some of these areas than any other OS out there. There are probably a lot of people who at least once thought how nice would it be if this app existed also on Windows, and guess what, these wishes come true more frequently than not. In my world this is one of the biggest strenghts of FOSS development which also makes such developers much more evolved in my book, since they are mostly developing to be platform-agnostic.

If I were wearing my troll-boots, I'd tell you where to go with those new and exciting software you so hardly seek, but I can't find them so there you go, all I can advise you now is to take a much broader point of view upon the Linux and FOSS world, formulate goals and try to find existing software to achieve your goals, and after experimentation you still feel the lack of those exciting pieces of software, than all you can do is search for other pastures where exciting-software-trees grow by the dozen.
 

"Evolution is a very clumsy feeling program with a lack of fluidity. Getting it to work with the MS Exchange plugin works about half the time (tried it on many distributions) and it's just a pain to use in the first place."

Go ask Microsoft why they lock down their products the way they do, it's not really the OSS community's fault.

the fact remains that I am tired of having to boot back into my Windows install to do some pretty basic stuff. [...] There is one application that cannot be run at all because of its dependency on Internet Explorer - Outlook 2003.

Well if you're sooo dependent on Microsoft products, and you admit it, then you should now understand WHY OSS is so important. We're seeking to empower the individuals, who in today's setup are at the mercy of software companies. And your experience of Linux has only highlighted even more this need to have an open alternative to Windows and its flagship "products".

If you want to exclusively use Linux, then the first thing you need to learn to do is to COMPROMISE. Understand that you'll be better off not using MSN messenger or Outlook, and start looking at the alternatives. We're not here to emulate windows, we're here to offer a different desktop experience.

As for the lack of new interesting things in the OSS world, well I'll just say that you haven't been looking hard enough. Not all the interesting stuff comes in a .deb or .rpm ...

I'm not sure why companies would need any special outline for Linux. That it's open-source is irrelevant for most software, really. If you're making a kernel module the issue comes into play, but very few things other than actual hardware devices need kernel modules. If you include GPL'd libraries in your software there's a licensing issue, but then if you include any libraries licensed from third parties you've got a licensing issue when you start distributing them and you're going to have to do some negotiating and cough up some money. I don't think there's any GPL'd libraries that apps on Linux have to use, so any app should be able to avoid the issue if they want to. The only thing left is integration into the system:

• Installation of the software. Not much to say here. A simple tar file that can be unpacked and copied under /usr/local, or that's got an installation script that does the work, should work on any Unix out there including Linux. At worst you've got to add a library directory to /etc/ld.so.conf, but usually a small wrapper script that sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately obviates the need for that. If you want to use the native packaging system you've got to build binary packages, but that's usually straightforward and covered in the documentation for each distro.
• Integration into the system startup scripts. There's a couple of different layouts for the startup script directories, and each distro has it's own little customizations you have to accomodate for perfect integration (things like how the script should check for the software already being started during runlevel changes, stuff like that). But how much software really needs to be set running during startup? Most doesn't, but the few packages that do have some complexity on their hands.
• Desktop integration. This isn't a Linux issue, it's a Gnome and KDE issue (those being the two major ones these days). Their Web sites have guides on how to do this right IIRC, and if you follow them it should work for that desktop on any platform the desktop runs on. Linux is simply another platform.
• Integration with the desktop. Um, this is Unix. There is no single desktop. Any user on the system can run any desktop, and in fact run different desktops at different times. Best bet is to follow the guides for integration, check for each desktop and integrate with all that're installed, and provide a single executable (or a wrapper script) that a user can run from the command line that'll start your app. That last insures users can use your app without any desktop integration at all by simply manually creating a launcher for it where they want one.
• Copy protection. This can be an issue. The world outside Windows is remarkably hostile to the sorts of copy-protection schemes seen in Windows software, and Linux isn't unique in this. License key servers can be used, but they tend to cause more headaches for your customers (even when working properly) than for pirates. Hardware keying is a pain since Unixes tend to hide the hardware so well the detailed information isn't readily available (you can get it, but it takes a fair amount of hackery).

Have I missed anything? I don't think I have, and aside from the issue of copy protection none of the above needs any special communication or coordination between the software vendor and the Linux community or distributions to deal with beyond reading the relevant docs. Maybe it's that the vendors have a problem believing it can be that simple after all these years of dealing with the complexities of Windows?

I am a novice linux user who is currently struggling through converting my computers completely to Ubuntu.

It has really been a challenge for me, not so much due to anything wrong with Ubuntu, but because the "aftermarket" software just doesn't exist, or is really poor.

For example, can you believe that there are no good graphical FTP clients for linux? It's true. I have been using gFTP, which most people consider to be the best one, for about a week. It crashes almost daily, isn't very good option-wise, and it is soooo slow. I want something simple, say something like WSFTP for windows, and lo and behold it just doesn't exist. Seems remarkable that a good graphical FTP client doesn't even exist.

The same can be said for a Mavis-esque typing program, and a simple photo editor like the immensely popular Irfanview.

Indeed these are the stumbling blocks for me. Not the distribution, but rather the software inavailability.

I think the article should be entitled "The future of MS Windows compataible closed source software and linux". There is plenty of other stuff in the feilds of geophysics, engineering, databases and system integration that is closed source but runs on a variety of platforms - including linux. A lot of it has done so for more than five years. A lot of it I wish was open source (eg. a closed source seismic data processing app has had a lot of bug fixes recently - but these won't be released to customers like my users until next year) but I just have to be happy that it exists.

There are more uses for a computer other than a glass typewriter, a ledger book or a toy.

One last comment about the example - Outlook not so good. Nearly every other email client stores data in a form that can be recovered by a even a text editor or by tools from the same vendor - not an obfiscated database that requires dodgy shareware tools to fix.

Here is a point many Slashdotters are missing, when they see the word "Closed Source".

Closed source should not be defined as anything packaged in disks or as installable on the local machines. The majority of closed source is now disguised as Web Applications. When we raise arms against Microsoft, we are supportive or at best silent about the dozens of useful web applications that spring up. Google Maps, Spreadsheets, BaseCamp and the rest are as closed source as Microsoft are. And so are the algorithms that power things like search engines.

As Google and others bring newer applications on the Web, and as the desktop applications get replaced by Web Applications we will have "Closed Source 2.0".

Actually they might be worse that the current breed of closed source.
- When Web Applications shut down you have nothing!
- You dont have code to reverse engineer
- Hell, you don't even have the data with you
- You have no idea what they do with your data!
- Can we depend on their security?

 

Replying to this Flamebait Troll of an article? This is what I was doing when I refereshed my Slashdot page and found this chump spewing misinformation:

In our site, we've got Active Directory for a group of 700 systems, and about 1200 users. I think Craptive Directory is a better word for this piece of junk. We tried migrating from Win2K server to Win2K3, and the damn thing called domain-prep and forest-prep threw out an error page some 500 meters long. Smoke's coming outta' my ears just reading reams and reams of error messages.
So, I ask the security chap..

What if we migrate to a better Directory server.. we're thinking of OpenLDAP or Fedora Directory Services. I asked this bloke to backup Active Directory, just in case. He says It Can't Be Done!!! It's just not possible to take a backup of the bloody damn POS s/w that's used to store the company's most valuable information. It's JUST NOT POSSIBLE TO transfer it to a better config. or even upgrade to a higher version smoothly. Seriously, why people ever choose Crapware like Active Directory, Exchange, LookOut or Office is beyond me.

And so, we're sitting down, thinking long hard thoughts... wondering what we should be doing, to ensure we're fine, atleast 2 years from now... some points: (Actually this bloke Matt Hartley may have done us a big favour - he's made all the wrong arguments and points in one piece!)

I. Use ONLY open standards and specs. No compromise on this at any cost.
1a. We've decided to go in with HTML for 'documents'. Why do we need docs? We need to look at them, we need to print them, we need to email them so others can see, and we need to be able to write tools that can manipulate OUR data in OUR docs. And so, it's gonna be HTML from here on out. The Nvu editor seems the best suited for this thing, so we're going with it.

1b. We don't use spreadsheets a lot. For those rare cases, we've decided to go in for Gnumeric, and csv as the format. No more of those bloody macros in the a/cs dept. We've developed all their apps on a server, we're giving them Import and Export to cvf where needed, and that's it.

1c. PowerPoint: We've told the suits to go in with Impress for the time being... under OpenOffice. Until we figure out the best Open Source tool for presentations, that works to Open Standards, that is. All told, we have very few suits.. less than a dozen, so let them start picking up these skills NOW!

II. Groupware: No more fiddling around with the Exchange Server or the Notes server trying to figure out how to build some site-specific features we need. No point. We've figured the only thing MS or IBM care about is licensing money, not adherence to standards, delivering something useful to us, or anything. They just want license money, so we're looking elsewhere.

We're also trying to build in some CRM functions... we heard Dynamics works only under Craptive Directory, so we're giving it a miss. SugarCRM seems useless without their commercial license, so we're ditching it too.

We're experimenting with vTiger, Drupal, Mambo, phpBB and Moodle.. yes, Moodle. It looks the easiest of the lot to actually build community-oriented features, and has the most elegant of interfaces. No need for any client, no Evolution, no Zimbra, no nothing. Just a customised Groupware client that does the job for us. That works the way we like. That helps our users relate to what software we provide them.

So, we asked ourselves, what are we doing with our email system?
1. Announcements, Circulars and Notifications: We've decided to have them at the top of our Groupware page. Every intended recipient to indicate they've read the message.. some option for a feedback. No more tons of "Read" messages to the sender, no more Acknowledgement emails... no nothing. Just a one-page report to the Sender of which users have Read, Not Read, and Comments. That's it for this category of mails.

2. Calendaring: We figured out this is not really important for all users, and the few who need it, need it in diffe

And with me only two score and four years on this earth, there I was thinking that software only had to be "useful" and "usable".

Look, I have no problem with people using Windows (I do myself a little), I have no problem with people disliking command-line tools in Windows or Linux but can *both types* of people please STOP imposing their view of the world on the rest of us! Now!

The fact is that NOBODY (repeat N-O-B-O-D-Y) can appreciate the power of a Linux or UNIX operating system until you dive into the command line, learn shell, Python, Perl or another scripting language and start putting together INCREDIBLY POWERFUL AND VERSATILE TOOLS yourself.

For the uninitiated, from the shell prompt in Linux or UNIX you can log into remote systems, view web pages, burn CDs, rip CDs, play MP3s, convert images, perform countless system diagnostics, edit files, etc. etc. On top of this, you can do some of the most amazingly powerful text manipulation using complex regular expressions that end up looking like a spider has crawled across your screen with inky feet. Admittedly, to a GUI-based user, none of this looks particularly "exciting" but when all of these tasks can be combined in countless ways within scripts, NOTHING (repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G) within a GUI environment comes CLOSE for automation and sheer power.

No, I'm not a command line zealot. I believe it's up to the user to decide what software/OS they are comfortable with, I personally have favourite tools in Windows, Gnome, KDE, BASH and even MS-DOS and I just use whatever I need to use to get a job done as quickly as possible. But the fact is that the UNIX command line is the most common place for me to work in.

But to all the uninitiated out there, please do not voice opinions on a subject you do not fully understand. Linux and Open Source is NOT waging some kind of anti-Windows war with the goal of total Microsoft destruction - it's an ALTERNATIVE way of doing things where everything is done in an open fashion and the sole aim is to write useful, usable but NOT NECESSARILY PRETTY software, nothing more.

And if you're waiting for Linux to drop into your lap as a ready-packaged alternative to Windows that you can immediately start using like Windows from day one, then I'm afraid you're in for a long wait. To become a Linux user means taking more time to learn about how your computer works and, to be an effective Linux user, ramping up your learning curve so that you know how to take best advantage of the wealth of excellent free software that has become available to you.

If you're not willing to devote that time then, so be it. Stick with what you are comfortable with and enjoy it with my blessing - just don't be so quick to judge the rest of us.