Porting free software to Windows [LWN.net]

December 15, 2004

This article was contributed by Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier.

A recent debate between KDE developers raises an interesting question: Does it help or hurt to port open source applications to closed platforms, such as Windows? One side argues that availability of open source applications on Windows diminishes the chances that users will choose to migrate to Linux or *BSD. The other side argues that open source on Windows can bridge the gap between Linux and Windows, thus making it easier for users to (eventually) migrate.

First, there is the question of goals. While Microsoft has a coherent set of goals, the open source community does not. Some projects are dedicated to spreading open source as an end unto itself, others just see open source as the best model for their specific project. If the goal is simply to foster adoption of a specific application, like Firefox or OpenOffice.org, then porting that application to Windows is without question the right strategy. The vast majority of desktop users are on Windows, and it makes little sense to ask users to switch operating systems to use one application.

However, if the goal is to spread open source in general, then one has to wonder whether users are likely to migrate to a new operating system if the best applications for that system (or most of them, anyway) are also available on the closed system that they're familiar with. The vast majority of users are motivated by factors other than licensing.

This is not the first time the debate has been raised, nor is it likely to be the last. However, this may be a good time to look at the situation. Linux is acknowledged as a mainstream server operating system, but still looked at as a fringe desktop operating system. Desktop applications on Linux are starting to reach parity in ease-of-use and feature sets with their Windows counterparts, thus making it a viable platform for Windows users to migrate to, should they so choose. At the same time, many of those applications are available on Windows, allowing Windows users to adopt open source applications without migrating away from Windows. If this is the final result, then most Linux users would see porting open source applications to Windows as undesirable. As Aaron Seigo writes:

The more software we port to Windows the more we reinforce this application availability imbalance and strengthen the user's inertia to stay on Windows. If users had to make a choice between Windows or Linux (or BSD) when it came to getting access to better applications they would find they had a motivation to switch. And switch they would.

There is, however, the possibility that users will be more likely to adopt Linux or *BSD if they have a positive experience with some of the open source applications on Windows. Change is scary for many users, and it may be better to provide a means to gradually adjust to open source platforms rather than expecting a user to plunge in headlong and learn to swim right away. It's also worth considering that many Windows users would never be exposed to open source applications if they are not available on Windows. It's one thing to hear wonderful things about OpenOffice.org, Firefox, The Gimp, Apache or KDE, but another thing entirely to actually use those applications and become comfortable with them.

For organizations, the gradual approach may be the best way to ensure the adoption of open source. As "pipitas" argues:

Even at the present stage there is a considerable share of IT desicion makers in enterprises and government bodies who seriously evaluate options and costs of a switch over. For most, it now looks like "all or nothing," and a big jump. A too big one in many cases. So they refrain. So they sign another 5 year contract with MS...

To chop the task into smaller pieces, to take the direction, but only a few steps for now, to smooth the transition out over a period of time is very difficult. And it costs. Not only do you have to train the users. You also need to re-train the IT teams. So Microsoft is of course playing on the card of Total Cost of Ownership (TOC), with a liiiiiittle bit of (every marketeer's) exageration, but with a tiny bit of valid argument too. They keep winning, albeit often by a small margin. And they even start losing some rounds, lately.

Both sides make compelling arguments. There are, no doubt, users and organizations that will adopt a handful of open source applications and stop there. Other users and organizations will adopt Firefox, OpenOffice.org and other open source applications and decide to go further.

In the end, however, it's hard to argue for spreading open source by restricting users' choice. Most Linux users resent Microsoft for restricting their choices when using Windows, so it's somewhat hypocritical to suggest that Windows users should have to make an "all or nothing" choice to use Linux or *BSD to benefit from open source. While there's a risk that users will choose to stay on Windows, it's the ability to choose that led most of us to Linux in the first place.

(Log in to post comments)

Porting free software to Windows

Posted Dec 16, 2004 3:07 UTC (Thu) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link]

OTOH, and from a different perspective, Windows users are no less in need of quality software. Some of us are stuck using Windows for work, some of us choose dual-boot to fill needs that aren't as readily available on one platform or another, and some people actually believe in the Microsoft operating system. Yah, I know, but they exist. And it's nice to have quality, community-built, problem-oriented, guaranteed-to-still-exist software. Look at the title here. I hate to toot the FSF horn, but this isn't about Linux or *BSD. This is about the value of a free and open license and an intelligent development process. It's about the users with problems. I work in the hardware industry. No, the other hardware industry. When you give a customer a choice, that customer will choose the best fit to their needs. For some, that factors in price, for some it doesn't, but it's always about the best solution. If you want market share, it's about serving the customers. If we want market share, it's about serving the users. For some users, that means they need applications for non-free operating systems. If you don't want those users, don't serve them. I guarantee that someone else will. If you want them to use free software, let them have free software they can use. The developers set the user accessibility threshold.

Linux == Open Source but Open Source != Linux

Posted Dec 16, 2004 4:29 UTC (Thu) by jmalcolm (guest, #8876) [Link]

I have been an avid Linux user for about a decade now but to be fair there is more to Open Source than Linux.

When Richard Stallman first started writing Free Software he was doing it on a proprietary OS. It is hard to argue that this hurt the Open Source movement. Did writing Open Source software that ran on Solaris hinder the adoption of Linux? Not quite the same--but why not?

If you feel that Windows applications running on a proprietary OS is a bad thing you could always help out the ReactOS people. (http://www.reactos.org) Who knows, maybe ReactOS will be the Open Source OS that the mainstream adopts. Maybe all those Open Source apps on Windows will help.

Although Windows is the clear competitor to beat it is not even the only proprietary alternative. Witness the popularity of Mac OS X with Open Sourcers. GNUStep on Darwin might one day provide an alternative from Apple just like Linux has done for Sun and SCO.

As the article says, it is all about choice and we do not all share the same goals. I bet most of the Inkscape developers are more focussed on providing an alternative to CorelDraw and Illustrator than they are on moving people to Linux. Many will be delighted to bring traffic to the Linux and BSD worlds of course. Somebody somewhere is running it on DragonFly (or at least trying to).

I like having a few Linux distributions to choose from and have switched a few times. I like having more than one operating system to choose from even better. In my heart of hearts I wish there was an Open Source OS/2.

I guess I just hope world domination doesn't result in the same kind of oppression we fought so hard to shrug off.

Anyway, I have to get off my soapbox now and see if I can figure out how to get Xebian onto an XBox. :-)

Porting free software to Windows

Posted Dec 16, 2004 7:38 UTC (Thu) by pynm0001 (guest, #18379) [Link]

I'm not sure if Aaron has access to the comments here, so I just wanted
to point out that his argument has very little to do with "forcing" users
to use a Free Operating System. Instead he is worried that if we totter
too closely over the edge of Windows that Microsoft will find a way to
pull the rug out from under us.

Hopefully he can explain it better than I am, but the gist of his
argument is that with little incentive to switch, most Windows users will
remain Windows users. Obviously it takes only a small percentage of
Windows-using KDE users to outnumber KDE users on other OSes. If enough
KDE users are running on Windows, KDE will end up beholden to a platform
controlled by a company which is very hostile to open source projects
such as KDE.

I myself am not quite sold on the doom-and-gloom at this point, as I
think there are a few technical problems that would prevent KDE for Win32
from becoming as good as KDE on X Windows, and I doubt Microsoft's
ability to severely screw up KDE on Windows without also inadvertently
breaking other apps.

However, I'm *absolutely convinced* that Aaron is sincere in his
argument, and a good many of his points are valid but unacknowledged by
those aching to burn him in effigy. So it depresses me to see the
negative reaction that he has received for even broaching the topic. I
was impressed at the quality of the article however given the crucifixion
Aaron received on Slashdot.

- Michael Pyne

Porting free software to Windows

Posted Dec 16, 2004 10:04 UTC (Thu) by rakoch (guest, #4666) [Link]

Both sides have their points and any could be right. A behavior that can really hurt OpenSource is to develop OpenSource apps primarily on proprietary OSs and then do a half hearted port to Linux/BSD or even developing against proprietary libraries. Doom3 is such an example - it runs way better on Windows. To a lesser extend, but still - OpenOffice. It uses less memory, is more responsive and loads faster on Windows. Anyone who has to choose where to run OpenOffice based on usability issues only will run it on Windows. Another examples are Database Admin GUIs. All those create incentives to switch to Windows. That's the same as many vendors of proprietary apps do - shipping buggy Linux versions of their Windows Apps in old versions. We can't blame them, though. Windows is their bread and butter.

Ideally it should be the other way round - develop an OpenSource app on *nix first and then port to Windows so Windows users have a old version that's lacking some non-essential features. That wouldn't be a deliberate creation of crippleware - the porting process itself takes care of that. But *that* creates incentives to switch to a free platform.

-Rudiger

Porting free software to Windows

Posted Dec 16, 2004 11:07 UTC (Thu) by juanjux (guest, #11652) [Link]

Doom3 definitively doesn't run far better on Windows. If you have your card and your system OK it should give noticeable more fps than on Windows on the same computer, at least that is what I've experienced in the two computers I've tested it. A better example would be eMule -> aMule (which has less features.)<br>

Porting free software to Windows

Posted Dec 16, 2004 13:18 UTC (Thu) by rakoch (guest, #4666) [Link]

Anandtech appears to disagree:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2241&p=1 ff

I'd like to add something to my OpenOffice comments: This application makes it possible in the first place to use Linux on general purpose desktops where we have to deal with MS Document formats. So even though the Windows version is slightly smoother the net effect of this particular app is that users switch to Linux. So better not to blame Sun too loud ;)

-Rudiger

There IS an incentive to switch

Posted Dec 16, 2004 21:46 UTC (Thu) by jabby (guest, #2648) [Link]

Except that if they're using Firefox (instead of IE) and Thunderbird (instead of Outlook) and OpenOffice.org (instead of MSOffice) on Windows, they are already avoiding most of the viruses and worms that come to them through IE and VBScript. All they're left with are the security holes in the automatic services in Windows itself (like RPC stuff). That's not nearly as much of an incentive to move, especially if they have automatic updates turned on.

There may still be those people who make the switch all at once, running scared from malware, but those who take the slower approach of adopting open applications will feel this threat gradually lessened without having to switch OSes. This really makes the argument *against* porting open source apps to Windows because it really does help MS. Even if the users don't understand why, it gives the impression that their operating system is more secure.

I actually think that we *should* port apps to Windows to help people make the switch. The best reason is the one that the author gave (not trying to deny choice), but my reasoning is that even those who stay comfortable with Windows are laying down fertile soil for a future transition. They might not make that decision themselves. They may be forced into it by a horribly botched Longhorn release a couple years down the road... eventually, they will do what suits their individual needs best.

Jason

Deciding *what* to port

Posted Dec 16, 2004 13:54 UTC (Thu) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

Mr. Seigo's presentation of current conditions is very strong. However, I find myself drawing different conclusions from those conditions.

It strikes me that this discussion has parallels to the GPL vs. LGPL analysis. In his explanation of when to use which, RMS observes:

Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the L[esser] GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the L[esser] GPL for that library.
[....]
However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, .... [r]eleasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline.

Now, take that in terms of apps and OSes: ``when a free [applications]'s features are readily available for proprietary [OSes] through other alternative [application]s....'', and ``However, when a[n application] provides a significant unique capability, .... [r]eleasing it [only on Free OSes] and limiting its use to free [OSes] gives our community a real boost.''

This (to me) reasonable extension implies porting to MS windows only those applications which already exist as proprietary packages there, thereby introducing MS users to Free Software. OTOH, wherever a Free application is unique, or significantly better than, a proprietary offering (arguably Firefox, as Mr. Seigo shows), it should remain available solely on Free OSes.

Once introduced to Free, it's inevitable that some MS windows users will notice that their freedom is worth a lot, and will spread the word. The advantages of Free will cause such users to give thought to Free OSes, and consider switching. Thus, offering Free versions of stuff the users are already used to, can introduce them to the advantages of Free. When other stuff which they want is only available solely on a Free OS, so much the better.

Porting free software to Windows

Posted Dec 16, 2004 17:20 UTC (Thu) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link]

My friend uses gaim, Firefox & Thunderbird... all on Windows. Admittedly it annoys me. And now he recently installed Cygwin. So now that he's got all these cool apps, he sees no reason to need to learn another operating system like Linux.

I've often thought about this dilemma, and one of the ideas that keeps bouncing back and forth in my head is something like this: Create an open-source application suite for Windows, but crippled in some way that users *might* be inclined to switch to Linux. My idea is for a "GNOME for Windows", which includes stuff like Firefox, Evolution, Gimp, gaim, OpenOffice, and maybe Totem and some games but excludes some as-yet-to-be-named applications that only run on Linux/Unix and are good enough that some Windows users may consider switching over to GNOME for Linux to use.

This has the advantage that our star apps that already run on Windows get marketed as one nice little application suite, so Windows users are likely to get exposure to them all. This will facilitate their eventual (hopefully) transition to Linux. It also puts OSS in the press as having an open source alternative to the standard Windows desktop. If people start using these apps and then they see the same apps running on Linux some may ask why they are settling with paying for Windows and dealing with viruses, worms and spyware when they really don't have to.

Porting free software to Windows

Posted Dec 17, 2004 18:00 UTC (Fri) by mly (guest, #2171) [Link]

You can't win them all, and I think it's a good thing to have the ability to choose. Try to relax a bit. Let him make his choices. Besides, I'm pretty sure you'll be more successful in "selling" Linux to your friend if you stop trying...

Given time and lots of exposure to things like Firefox, Thunderbird, cygwin, python, Gimp and lots of other things that are standard on Linux, the barriers for switching will get lower and lower. Linux is getting more streamlined on the desktoop, and I'm pretty sure free emulation for the odd Windows app some might need to continue to run will improve as well.

You need to be a market leader to be able to make use of a lock-in approach, and deliberately avoiding ports to other platforms is the same plain and old lock-in strategy that Oracle, IBM, Microsoft and others have tried.

Linux isn't such a market leader yet, and I think it's a bad idea in general, regardless of whether you think it's better that people use Open Source operating systems instead of Windows. Relax a little and let people make their own choices. Try to lower the barriers, don't try to raise them.

I guess Bill Gates is as honestly convinced that the world would be a better place if everybody used Windows, as we are that it would be better if everybody used open source alternatives, but I think it's best if we try to make it as easy as possible for people to get their job done regardless of what plaform they work on.

I'm using MS Windows a lot, for various reasons. Cygwin and Python has certainly helped me keep my sanity. Firefox and Thunderbird allows me to use the net with a lot less worries than if I used Microsofts tools. I'm very happy for this ability, and if someone would try to take this away from me, I'd surely revolt!

Porting free software to Windows

Posted Dec 17, 2004 18:52 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I guess Bill Gates is as honestly convinced that the world would be a better place if everybody used Windows, as we are that it would be better if everybody used open source alternatives

To be more precise, I believe Gates is convinced primarily that the world would be a better place if everybody used the same platform. He's also convinced that the only practical way he can bring that about is if that platform is Windows.

And then from the other side, I'd like to point out that some of discussion here makes it clear that "we" are not all convinced that the world would be a better place if everyone used Linux -- or free software. Many of us instead favor diversity, many favor choice, and some are just ambivalent.

Porting free software to Windows

Posted Dec 16, 2004 21:52 UTC (Thu) by toehser (guest, #16968) [Link]

Why is there an a prori assumption that we want to advocate people leaving Windows with something more forceful than our advice when asked?

Our goal, in my opinion, is to build and use free and open software.

Should Linux refuse to boot if it doesn't find an open source BIOS?

Should it refuse to run in VMWare under Windows?

Does it help or hurt _what_ to port open source apps to Windows?

Why do we _care_ if it "diminishes the chances that users will choose to migrate"?

We should be about _increasing available choices_.

Our goal should be about increasing the *quality* and *availability* of open source- not spreading it by scheming...

In different circumstances, I run Cygwin, and boot Linux under Windows, and run Open Office and Mozilla under Windows. At home, I have the luxury of a system that is only what I have compiled myself- but professionally, I don't have that luxury.

This isn't all that different from the reasons I have to search for BSD or Apache licensed software to use it professionally...

It all boils down to the philosophical goals of the GPL vs. the goals of the Apache license...

If you accept the intent of the GPL, it makes perfect sense not to even allow building on non-free platforms, just as you wouldn't allow linking.

-Tom

Sell the Windows version (if you own the copyright)

Posted Dec 17, 2004 19:37 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

I've been working on a somewhat exotic non-mainstream application. It's been available as free software (GPL) for a few years now. I frequently get requests for a Windows version. I've tried to encourage others to port it to Windows, to no avail. I despise developing for Windows, but decided that based on how many people want it, I would in fact produce a Windows port. I cross-compile it from Linux. The application mostly works on Windows, but there are some issues that I still need to resolve.

But...

I'm going to sell the Windows version as closed-source. This works only because I own the copyright to the program. It wouldn't be practical for an established large free software application, because there would not be any way to get all of the copyright holders to agree to it.

I've already had a dozen people tell me that they want to buy the Windows version of my application when it's available.

Since the non-Windows version is still GPL'd, there's nothing to prevent someone else from doing a free Windows port, but I doubt that it will happen.

I'm looking forward to collecting a "Windows Tax" to fund future development of both the Windows and non-Windows versions of my program.

Sell the Windows version (if you own the copyright)

Posted Jan 4, 2005 22:25 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

I think this misses a major point. If one of the key arguments for open source software is that the larger community of developers improves the software faster than a single vendor could, then two things seem to fall out:

1) putting open software on Windows, with its much greater number of potential users, will make it get better faster, and

2) putting your otherwise open software on Windows as closed software will make it impossible for that user community to help you improve the software, so it will get better slower

I think the primary goal of a FLOSS project should be whatever the project participants want it to be; for some projects that might be to advance the FLOSS philosophy, for others it might be to advance the software the project builds. Every member of the community may have her own opinion as to whether one or the other is the loftier goal, but I think we should all take pleasure in contributing to making the debate possible.

Sell the Windows version (if you own the copyright)

Posted Jan 4, 2005 23:11 UTC (Tue) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

So these hypothetical improvements to the code that I'd miss out by making the Windows version non-free would be from the same Windows developers that have not volunteered to help me port the program to Windows in the first place? I don't think I'll be missing much.

Porting free software to Windows is wasted time

Posted Dec 20, 2004 13:55 UTC (Mon) by mwilck (guest, #1966) [Link]

Free software developers should focus on developing for free OS's, for their own sake, and for the sake of free software.

Why? Because users of free OS's do care whether the software they use is free or not. Everyone else doesn't.

If your free project X competes with proprietary product Y, some Windows users may consider switching to from Y to X. If, half a year later, Y version 10.0 comes out and some smart sales guy tells your user how much better and more colorful it is, X will happily switch back to Y.

A free OS user, OTOH, will appreciate the fact that X is free, and think twice before migrating back.

In the Windows world, free software doesn't only compete with commercial packages, but also with "Shareware" "Beerware" and all the other cheap pseudo-free stuff out there (and of course with the black copies of commercial SW that Windows users are collecting). For 99.9% of Windows users this all the same as long as they can get it without paying.

I don't mind if some projects are ported to Windows. I guess it's actually a commercial opportunity for some companies. But it turns me away if I see a project where developers seem to be putting more effort into the Windows port as in improving their software on the native (i.e. free) platforms. Even if this gains a project more users in the short term - those users will be gone quickly.

A small privilege

Posted Dec 20, 2004 14:30 UTC (Mon) by mwilck (guest, #1966) [Link]

I have another point to make.

Linux users must forego a vast amount of non-free applications (think Adobe, think games, think HyperTaxSaver2005, even MS office, whatever). Many are easy to live without, others less so.

Free OS users quickly get used to the the fact that hardware manufacturers, web publishers and of course software developers think about them last, right before considering the demands of Windows 3.1 and Atari users.

For us free OS users, it's a small privilege and a nice warm and cozy feeling to think that at least the free software community thinks about us first. Let it remain that way. We deserve it.

This may not make people migrate towards Linux faster. But it may help pleople to stick with it.