Weather | TV Guide | Horoscopes | Competitions

Hotmail
Messenger
Mobile

Why Open Source primarily benefits Windows

Send to a friend

James Bannan25 September 2007, 7:49 AM

How's this for irony? The principal beneficiaries of open source are Windows users. Here are the top 20 free apps.

If you believe the Linux zealots, open source will, eventually, triumph over proprietary/commercial software (read Microsoft).

Of course, the reality is that the principal beneficiaries of open source are, in fact, Windows users.

Why? Because Windows is the dominant desktop operating system, and if you’ve put in your time and effort to create an open source product that you’re particularly proud of, what’s the best way to get it out there? Make sure it works on Windows, and watch the acclaim come rolling in.

Of course, any Linux advocate will tell you how all the best open source apps either come bundled with most popular Linux distros or are fully supported on them, and that may certainly be the case, but unfortunately for Linux, it doesn’t matter very much. Linux on the desktop still has too many quirks and incompatibilities for Joe Average to blow away Windows just yet.

The sweet middle-ground for most people is that you can now build a Windows-based system with completely free software running on Windows.

Effectively, Windows is now the only software most people have to pay for.

The top 20 free apps for Windows

Here’s my personal “best of” list – stuff that you simply can’t go past, and some of which I use myself all day every day. Note, these apps are free -- not all of them are open source.

OpenOffice – not quite as advanced as Microsoft Office and doesn’t have SharePoint integration, but if that doesn’t matter then look no further (check out Novell’s version too)
Mozilla Firefox – just as secure as IE7 but insanely customisable. The best browsing experience available
Mozilla Thunderbird – outstanding customisable email (make sure you install Lightning as well)
Evolution – yes, it’s been ported to Windows, and is an excellent corporate groupware product
Mozilla SunBird – if you prefer a separate application for calendaring, this is the one for you
Pidgin - chat on every network through one lightweight open-source program, with none of the banner ads and hoop-jumping the official clients put you through.
Media Player Classic – lightweight media player with lots of useful addins (like DVD playback)
The GIMP – still one of the best image editing packages out there
K-Lite Mega Codec Pack – play any media file available (includes Media Player Classic)
VLC Media Player – cross-platform media player and streaming server
MediaCoder – can convert pretty much anything to anything and back again
Winamp – still the best music player, in my opinion
RSSOwl – if you prefer a separate app to manage newsfeed/RSS/XML/Atom subscriptions, this is the one
Juice – any podcast, any format
AVG Anti-Virus – still kicking goals. Lightweight, stable and offers great realtime protection
AVG Anti-Spyware – manual updates required for the free version, but still very good
Ad-Aware Free – despite the push towards licensing, the free version is still great
Spybot – still free, still powerful
Azureus – a powerful and very advanced Java-based torrent client
PrimoPDF – convert pretty much anything to PDF

Comments

RSS feed

Email alert

djg:

I do not believe that the listed applications are all open source. Sure, they are free, but try getting the source code to AVG products. Please do not confuse Open Source with Free - they are quite different.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

rms:

djg, the article says "not all of them are open source".. read the article before posting a comment!

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

lbot:

why dont you read the article, it clearly says that some are open source and others are free. the article does not confuse this at all

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

open_source_rules:

Congratulations James for alerting people to this fact.

I shudder when I think about the amount of money everyday PC users spend on software which is in most cases is no better than the open source alternative. I have never needed to buy software because of the quality and quantity of open source applications available for the PC.

Don't get me wrong Linux is a wonderful platform, and has its uses but James is correct in stating that Windows is the dominant platform. At the moment Mums and Dads aren't heading down to their local store to buy a new computer with the latest release of debian/ubuntu pre-installed, but in time this could change.

I believe that more people should embrace the wonderful open source applications available for windows and hopefully, one day, those linux zealots will develop an operating system that rivals Microsoft Windows for Everyday Usability.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Brendan:

"AVG Anti-Virus – still kicking goals. Lightweight, stable and offers great realtime protection
AVG Anti-Spyware – manual updates required for the free version, but still very good
Ad-Aware Free – despite the push towards licensing, the free version is still great
Spybot – still free, still powerful"

No Unix OS requires such counter-atrocities. Everything there is basically crossplatform, unless useless as above, and the exception of Winamp, but XMMS replicates it if you _really_ want it, but mpd is definately where it's at.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Sly Coder:

Open Source primarily benefits Windows?

Not a chance.

And here's why.

James, you will, I'm sure, know that most people stick with a particular operating system because it has the functions they need and it runs the applications they want.

Any new operating system had better look familiar enough to them and had better run those applications, or it has little chance of replacing their existing platform.

Over the past 18 years, most users have adopted applications which don't run natively under Linux: MS Office, IE, apps built with Visual Basic, .NET or Access, Publisher, Photoshoop etc.

In coming to rely on this proprietary software, users are prevented from seriously considering Linux as a desktop solution, unless they utlise technology like Wine, CrossOver, VMWare etc, ie, less optimal than native apps.

What's important about the open source software you mention, is that these applications also run natively on Linux.

And once users start adopting this software, and that software provides the key functions they need from a PC, then it becomes very feasible for them to migrate to Linux - far more feasible than it was before.

By advocating the use of this open source software for Windows users, you're lubricating the escape hatch which allows them to leave the world of application-platform lock in - to leave the world of Microsoft Windows.

What else? Oh, yes. Many less technical users have been traditionally hesitant about adopting community-developed software. By providing this list of quality products, you're helping reduce the cognitive dissonance barrier they may have about such software.

This in turn makes it easier for them to consider an open source operating system, like Linux, in future.

Thank you for your efforts! ;-)

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

tin:

The way I see it is the same. Give people the open source alternatives on Windows, and they get used to them. A few years later, it's a simple flip to Linux, FreeBSD or even MacOS... Hardly helpful to MS.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Geekboy:

The title and introduction to this article imply that it's all about open source software for Windows, and yet a large proportion of the software listed is just freeware, not open source.

There is a huge difference, you know!

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Wes:

I think it would have been better had the list only included open source software without the freeware like AVG Anti-virus.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

jst4fun:

Well I just cant agree to what was pointed out in this article. May be what you said about Linux may be true, it may be difficult for Joe Average to start using Linux right away but that is a different story. First of all the list of softwares are not completely open-source (even though you have mentioned it). Why is the closed source free software in an article which talks about open source software? As said in one of the comments above please don't mix open and closed source softwares in an article like this.
Next one that I need to point out is that it is not necessary for an open source software to be made available for windows in order to be successful. Can you tell me how many open source softwares have got recognized through windows platform. For a basic user open office is more than enough to do their tasks. How many windows user uses open office or even installed in their computer? Many might pirate MS office but wont be ready to install open office. How many people using windows know that there is a photoshop alternative like gimp is available for free. If you try to get the statistics more of the gimp users and openoffice users are from linux or related Operating system. When I was using windows I never knew such softwares even exist and only after shifting to linux I came to know such wonderful softwares do exist. I can point out a lot of softwares that became a hit through Linux. One such software is Amarok. It is now only available for Linux (or similar OS) but it is been one of software with huge list of users. Similarly openoffice, gimp, xine, mplayer, blender and lot of others. And a final question, how many windows users know what an open source software is? The only use of porting to windows is that you can get more users and never expect the software to be successful by having a window version.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

JoeTF:

Wroom, wroom...flame machine on!

Yeah, freeware is different than open-source. In most cases, by being vastly better. Compare uTorrent with Azureus for example: Few levels of magnitude in memory usage, much better stability, usability and speed than FSSO alternative. Or CCCP vs. VLC: full compability with everything vs. inabality to render correctly anything more complicated than most basic subtitles. I could go on and on.

It's not that people are lazy and too used to Ms Office - it's that MS Office is vastly superior to OO, same goes for Photoshop, u Torrent and many many more applications (most of them freeware - do you linux users have anything that comes near irfanview or paint.net).

Another thing is that unix is simply NOT A DESKTOP OS. It was created as server OS, it was developed as server OS and didn't we have frontpage article about how unix sucks for desktop? And it's also based on 40 year old principles. That makes it's prehistoric. It's not even a proper gui OS.

Noone writes viruses and worms targeting unix because there is no reason for it. And it has been done, btw (check google). consider that unix handling of applications/packages/things(or wahtever your distributions likes to call them) is atrocious - try to imagine Ubuntu installer with 381 ftp clients (that's how much there are for windows, each with different feature set).

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

tin:

Compare uTorrent with Azureus for example: Few levels of magnitude in memory usage, much better stability, usability and speed than FSSO alternative
Or you could say, "I tried 2 programs. The Open Source one wasn't very good, so all Open Source software is crap".
It's nothing to do with the license, and everything to do with:
Target market.
Who wrote it.
How long they've been actively working on it.

It's not that people are lazy and too used to Ms Office - it's that MS Office is vastly superior to OO
In pretty looks perhaps. What you say suggests you have never, ever actually tried to use an open source alternative for anything. By trying, I mean install it, open it, use it. And don't give up when the font dialog looks different or the method of drawing a table is not what you learned in proprietary products.

do you linux users have anything that comes near irfanview
If there isn't something similar, perhaps it's because no OSS user has found the need for it yet. What's it do? I've never needed it on Windows either so I wouldn't know.

And it's also based on 40 year old principles. That makes it's prehistoric. It's not even a proper gui OS.
WTF? Not a "proper GUI OS"? What in the heck is that supposed to mean. Since when did having a GUI as a core kernel function define the quality and usefulness of a modern OS?

try to imagine Ubuntu installer with 381 ftp clients (that's how much there are for windows, each with different feature set).
Uh, how many packages does Windows include in it's package manager? And are they any good?

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Kevin Dean:

Let me preface this thrice: I'm a Free Software (as in Libre, not gratis) zealot. I'm a GNU/Linux user. I think advocating for GNU/Linux is a waste of time.

It appears that the author of this article bases the premise that open source is benefiting Windows, but it never actually says how.

I oppose the use of the term "Open Source" but it seems as if the author doesn't even use the misleading term correctly.

And as to the pure technical merits, I think you're sadly mistaken. In the many years I've been a GNU/Linux user, I've never heard someone mention that they're so fond of their (Windows) file manager, or the (Windows) X server that they can't leave it. They're concerned with Games and applications like Photoshop.

Nothing on your list truly replaces those things - even a zealot can admit Gimp doesn't hold a candle to Photoshop except in one area: freedom!

GNU/Linux advocacy is pointless, it's freedom advocacy that is needed - and once people realize that they're being restricted, those applications won't matter. And if people don't realize that, then no amount of 'look-alikes" will matter because the restrictions themselves (like lack of file portability - iTunes; poor interoperability - MS Exchange) will bind people to the application, not functionality.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

MCKooiker:

Indeed the title claims that windows users benefit from open source, whereas the list says "top-20 FREE apps", a bit confusing.
Further it is quite funny that within the top-20 free apps there are 4 apps on anti-virus/spyware. That is 20% of apps that are useless on UNIX operating systems. 4 apps that give extra maintenance problems that would be prevented by changing operating system. Just think about it a moment....
check out my blog!!

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Anonymous2:

If advocating Linux makes people Linux zealots, does advocating Windows make you a Windows zealot?

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

ArtInvent:

Proprietary software, monopolistic practices, closed file formats, forced upgrades, and vendor lockin are not by ANY means confined to MS's OS. Autodesk, Adobe, the MS Office franchise, Apple iTunes, and lots of industry specific software companies are just as guilty of the same ills.

The availability of FOSS apps for Windows is exactly what enabled me to eventually switch to Gnu/Linux. I started with OpenOffice when I really didn't even know what FOSS was. Then Blender. Then Firefox. Then Audacity. Etc. When I realized that 80% of my apps were FOSS, I decided to take the plunge and went to Ubuntu for my next computer. But that was probably 3-4 years after trying my first FOSS program for Win.

Yes, initially Windows users and therefore MS itself may be the primary beneficiaries. But let's not forget that probably 90% of computer users still don't even know what FOSS is really all about, and at least half wouldn't have the foggiest notion even of what the words 'open source' mean. FOSS needs to get a foot in the door and get on the radar to these people, and porting FOSS to Win is maybe still one of the best ways to get on the radar.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

MikeFM:

You've totally missed that the vast majority of people who use the Internet are using Linux and BSD on a daily basis. End users may not know it and it may be completely invisible to them but many of the most used websites run on open source software running on Linux. Many email servers are open source running on Linux. If you use the Internet then you are a Linux and BSD user. The desktop is only part of the user's experience.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

oz_ollie:

As pointed out by other posters, Open Source Software (OSS) and Freeware are very different. Open Source Software allows you to modify the software, as long as you release those changes to the world as well.

Real OSS anti virus software is provided by ClamWin. For true OSS download and distribute TheOpenCD Software Freedom Day 2007 edition - http://www.theopencd.org/. You can also take part in Software Freedom Day 2008 on 20 September 2008.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Henry S.:

The argument you make is one that is debated alot: whether making Linux applications run on Windows hurts Linux or not. Currently, open source GTK, QT, and Java applications will run on Windows. People have recently been debating the fact that KDE apps will soon run on Windows.

When I started using Linux, there was no viable office suite, not even a viable BROWSER!!! It was difficult to be a Linux user...I used it because I seen where it was going. Now, Firefox is the browser to use on any platform, and Open Office is the suite of choice for people not made of money. It will be alot easier for people to switch to Linux if they are already using Firefox, Gimp, Amarok, instead of IE, Photoshop, and Windows Media Player.

That being said, remember that Open Source isn't only Linux. If Windows people are all using Open Source applications...then Open Source has already won (now that doesn't mean that Linux has won...it is just one application)

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Pat Gunn:

Linux has had browsers for about as long as Windows has. Even before NCSA's Mosaic, there were browsers for Unix-family operating systems, and there has been a constant stream of browsers between then and new.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

AnonymousAussie:

Another repeat of old news with a misleading heading.

Its more of an article that once again states that by mixing a bunch of freeware apps together you can do some things the paid versions can do.

But you gotta remember that most freeware is free for home use only, (Not for businesses) and thus it has limited appeal.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Anonymous7:

"But you gotta remember that most freeware is free for home use only, (Not for businesses) and thus it has limited appeal."

Yeah, that's exactly why the distinction between free and OSS was being made. Not all software is good, regardless of whether it's free, oss or proprietary. A core necessity of many businesses is having a reliable server. FreeBSD / Linux comes to mind, MS Windows isn't even an option ;p

"Its more of an article that once again states that by mixing a bunch of freeware apps together you can do some things the paid versions can do."

And your perspective is what? That you can't get the same functionality if you haven't paid for the software? Yeah yeah, I know MS Windows has all those, "I must use this app or I'll die" users. Humorous. They are used to MS Windows, that's all. If anyone wishes to argue that it is more than that, I'd like for them to explain why they didn't just start they're project/business on Linux/FreeBSD. They'd be "used" to that then.

29 February 2008, 8:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

TripleII:

I am reading this and thinking, what am I missing. How is using Open Source software on Windows bad for Linux? If the average user learns how to use and rely on Open Source software for their entire skillset, moving to Linux on a PC is beyond trivial. The whole reason IE, WMP, DRM, etc is imbedded into the OS of Windows is to specifically prevent users from learning any application that doesn't run on Windows. That is the magic of the monopoly. By removing the barrier (strange new applications to learn) in jumping from an expensive ($400 for ultimate, although ultimately, what is ultimate about it) to a free OS becomes, again trivial.

Especially if OEMed for the customer and coming in at $79 to $150 cheaper, as is now happening.

This article is one the stranger and least credible spins I have read.

TripleII

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Michael`:

Nice to see a more honest and practical view of open source in the real world—rather than from biased Linux advocates who make up 1-2% of the population.

This article explains just what I want to know. I look forward to an article that says Linux is ready for Average Joes in the next few years.

I'm one of those sweet middle-ground people. Sometimes I think about dual booting with Linux, but Windows XP does everything I need. The cool thing is how I can use stuff like OpenOffice.org for free. Driver support is also better for Windows XP, and the last thing I want to do is spend ages figuring out a workaround on Linux. Doing stuff like recompiling kernels isn't interesting to me. I just want to use a computer.

I've got nothing against the open source concept, but the Richard Stallman "freedom is everything" isn't quite as important to me. I will respect Stallman more when GNU HURD is actually stable. What, 17 years without a stable release? And you're too busy telling people to say GNU/Linux instead of Linux? The vast majority of people don't care.

29 February 2008, 8:32 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend