Why Free Software has failed the desktop

That's an interesting way to think of it. I also think that users need other good reasons to switch to free software. The thing that bothers me most is that proprietary software often requires activation, and needs to check in with the "mothership", which I don't like because data is collected from the PC and sent in, and can continue to collect whenever it wants. And since it's closed source, the users really don't have a way to verify what information is being collected.

You seem to have missed what Bill Gates said about China: "As long as they are going to steal [software], we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-212942.html

Bill Gates also said: "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2098235.ece

It's probably about three decades away from being a new idea, even in the PC business ;-)

Otherwise, there isn't a *single* reason for anything. The world is much more complex and interesting than that.

One of the reasons people don't use GIMP, for example, is that it's basically crap. Another is that there are not loads of people running GIMP training courses, or writing GIMP books etc. One of the reasons Linux became successful as a web-server was because of the LAMP stack: it wasn't *just* Linux.

One of the reasons all these technology-based comparisons fail is because they are not based on reality, which is described empirically by the "whole product" model. I've written about it at various times, eg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2003/jan/25/comment.comment

@apexwm

> data is collected from the PC and sent in, and can continue to collect whenever
> it wants. And since it's closed source, the users really don't have a way to verify
> what information is being collected.

This is true of smartphones and browsing as well, whether they are open source or not. It's far from specific to Windows. In fact, ordinary non-techie users have no more idea whether it's happening with Linux than with Windows or Mac OS X, since the monitoring could be done by an app or Trojan rather than the OS.

However, lots of people have and actually do read Windows source code, or have deep knowledge because they're anti-virus developers, or they're working with trusted platforms. We also have a few people who use packet sniffers to find out what their systems are doing, and they tell the rest of us. The reality is different from the conspiracy theory.

By far the biggest (semi) secret global tracking and monitoring system is actually run by Google, but I guess that doesn't matter if you are only interested in hating Microsoft.

Jack,

"This is true of smartphones and browsing as well, whether they are open source or not. "

Yes, that's true, but can you name one piece of true open source software that collects information on the computer and sends it out somewhere? Personally I don't even know of a single open source title that does this by default, but I mostly use open source on GNU/Linux so there's really no need to track what people are doing with the software.

My point was that with open source, ANY user who has the desire to crack open the code, can verify what exactly the app is doing and what it is collecting, rather than trying to do it second-hand, and guess by sniffing TCP traffic. Also due to the nature of open source, there are millions of individuals looking the code over, where closed source severely limits the number of people that actually have access to the code.

I've often wondered how many people, in reality, go snuffling through source code to find out stuff like that. I'd like to think it could be millions but somehow I doubt it. tens of thousands would be my ballpark guess. If you know (not guess) differently, I'd be glad to hear about it.

Part of the the premise of your argument is incorrect - you argue that "[relatively] no-one uses GIMP".

Sourceforge shows shows that the Windows version of GIMP is downloaded roughly 50,000 times _every_ day ... 22.5 million times in the last year alone.

manek :

"I'd like to think it could be millions but somehow I doubt it. tens of thousands would be my ballpark guess."

Overall when you include all open source products (and there are thousands of them), I would guess it would have to be quite high in number. However I don't see how we could ever get a close number. The point is, it's way higher than the number that can access the code of closed source and proprietary software.

Jack :

"One of the reasons people don't use GIMP, for example, is that it's basically crap. Another is that there are not loads of people running GIMP training courses, or writing GIMP books etc."

As a regular user of Gimp, I would have to disagree. It's a very powerful graphics processing program that rates up there with Photoshop, the proprietary alternative. Gimp costs nothing to use, and has lifetime free upgrades; Photoshop costs money up front and also costs more for upgrades. As with most open source software, there are minimal training courses, that is correct. But I would love to know what your reasons are for concluding that Gimp is "crap", based on a functionality standpoint.

I've been using GIMP for a while. Mostly because I'm too skinflint to pay £200 for PS and the cheaper/ free legal alternatives are way too noddy.

GIMP seems to have the usual opensource complaints - it is far more powerful than all but the most expensive competition, but the learning curve can be steep.

I suspect, despite the dramatic improvements made in recent times, it's still too steep for the less determined/skinflint windows user.


Perhaps if you have software which retails for £200 you are willing to put in some effort to learn it. Or does PS magically know what you want to do with it?

@filthylooker - I bought PS rather than any of the alternatives purely because I knew where to get help on it - from some contacts who used the software professionally.

I have to say that the initial PS learning curve was very steep, but it was overcome because my friends were able to "hand-hold" through the worst bits, and provide easy step by step advice for doing even quite complicated things until I got the hang of it.

Same reason I stick with Windows - it may be horrible to use but I know how to work around it, and the "coders only" impression of Linux puts me off.

FYI: ZDNet UK looked at the Photoshop v GIMP question a while back:
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/reviews/content-creation/2007/07/20/can-gimp-replace-photoshop-39288136/2/.

Our conclusion back in 2007: "So can free software really compete with Photoshop? For the vast majority of ordinary users the short answer is certainly 'yes'. However, for graphics professionals — that is, Photoshop’s target market — the answer has to be a resounding 'no'. "

The GIMP's great as free software, but in my experience it's a lot slower than Photoshop; for example, you can see the picture being redrawn in blocks when applying certain filters/processing, when the same image changes instantly in Photoshop.

Any good graphics software will have a learning curve, but there's just so much support for Photoshop (just look in WH Smith for the number of Photoshop magazine guides for a start), including online videos at Adobe and elsewhere.

I have downloaded Gimp a number of times and always go back to Photoshop. Gimp doesn't even come close.

@apexwm

> My point was that with open source, ANY user who has the desire to crack open
> the code, can verify what exactly the app is doing and what it is collecting,

In theory, any user can. In reality, very few people can (because it requires a lot of time and expertise), and even fewer of them actually do. However, it's relatively simple for bad guys to insert Trojans into open source code, and it's even been done by hacking download sites. (I recall it happened to Sendmail around a decade ago.)

Pirate versions of Windows are often seeded with Trojans and other malware. We don't know how often that happens with Linux, but is anyone trying to police it? How many ordinary users would know if their distro had a hdden Trojan? Would you? I suspect you're taking it on blind trust.

There was the case where a Trojan was packaged with UnrealIRCd, and nobody noticed for about 7 months:

> This backdoor allows a person to execute ANY command with the privileges of the
> user running the ircd. The backdoor can be executed regardless of any user
> restrictions (so even if you have passworded server or hub that doesn't allow any
> users in).
http://computingondemand.com/linux-infected-by-complacency

As the poster said:

> This obviously represents one FATAL flaw with the Linux faithful; the blind trust
> we have for the most of the Linux community and the lack of attention we pay to
> what we are installing or downloading.

Incidentally, VLC is now being used to distribute malware
http://www.itworld.com/security/182757/floss-accept-no-substitutes

The fact that it is open source is really no protection at all.

@purpaboo

> Sourceforge shows shows that the Windows version of GIMP is downloaded
> roughly 50,000 times _every_ day ... 22.5 million times in the last year alone.

Downloads are not a good measure of success. A lot of people download stuff and never run it. A lot more run it for 30 seconds then uninstall it. (I do this a lot myself.) I'd guess most people who download GIMP give up within a day. As far as I can tell, it's mainly used by people who use it for other reasons (they're open source supporters) regardless of the fact that it's crap.

There are, in fact, plenty of free graphics programs and websites that people can use instead of Photoshop, including Paint.net (which tried to be open source) and PhotoScape. Even Linux has Fotaxx. The focus should be on "this is something you can actually use" rather than "it's as powerful as $/£xxx Photoshop".

So the real question is, do you want to satisfy users' needs or do you want to wage a childish war on high-priced proprietary software suppliers? Oh, right.

@Jack,
> One of the reasons Linux became successful as a
> web-server was because of the LAMP stack: it
> wasn't *just* Linux.
If that's true, then why aren't WAMP (Windows, Apache, MySQL, PHP) servers just as popular as LAMP? Maybe those web/db admins think Windows is "basically crap" (to borrow your own terminology).

> Pirate versions of Windows are often seeded with Trojans
> and other malware. We don't know how often that happens
> with Linux, but is anyone trying to police it?

Yes, I'd say so. There's a certain Mr Torvalds that polices the Kernel. And as for distros:
"Repositories make it very easy to install new software onto Ubuntu using an Internet connection, while also providing a high level of security, as each program available in the repositories is thoroughly tested and built specifically for each version of Ubuntu."
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu

Of course, a download site can be hacked, as you say. But that's equally applicable to Microsoft, Apple, Adobe and any other proprietary vendor, as much as it is for open source. But the repository system does, at least, reduce the need to scouring the web for apps that need to be downloaded individually. That's pretty much the only experience in the Windows world at the moment, and it's how I've gotten infected in the past.

Anyone know a good explanation on the economies of FOSS? I know there must be, you experts have all thought this through. I still cannot get my head around why I'd spend 8 hours a day coding, then give the software away? I guess i could use someone elses software for free, but that does count as currency at any supermarket I know of.

In my mind the fall of Linux in the desktop is because Windows has been and still is good and Mac has become better at offering high end games, which we do lack in Linux and do not even start saying you can play on wine, yes you can, but it's really annoying to get some games to work on it, if it's even possible.

Though for the causal Gamer Linux is good who needs just sudoku, minesweeper, card games etc.

If you just use PC for facebook and reading the news and banking. Linux works fine like any other OS, though we miss things like silverlight. Reason for Windows being popular with these people is because Windows and Mac comes with their PC's.

If you are artists, create audio, video or graphics. Linux is not the best, but we do have tools to work out your creativity. Though in the 3D field Linux is superior with Blender, even though Blender is available for other operation systems.

In the programming field Linux is absolutely superior than any other OS. You can write code in text editor, terminal or Integrated Development Environment. You can write cross-platform applications easily with the tools provided in linux distributions. Though you can kind of forget .NET even if Mono offers .NET tools on Linux too.

Movies and music plays in linux, though Spotify could be ported to Linux.

The new Desktop Environments Gnome 3 and Unity are hard to use for those who are used to Windows or Mac.

@Jack Schofield: Thanks for the background info, I tend not to follow what Bill Gates has to say, TBH.
"One of the reasons people don't use GIMP.. s that it's basically crap"
I beg to differ: GIMP has come on leaps and bounds, and there are some features (eg resizeable marquee) that are just glaring omissions from Photoshop. And it's small, and *so much* faster than Photoshop. Oh, and it's Free ;)

@Charles McLellan: "However, for graphics professionals — that is, Photoshop’s target market — the answer has to be a resounding 'no'. "
Er, sorry to be the Open Source fly in the ointment but I *am* a graphics professional ;)
Where GIMP really falls down is that Photoshop is the de facto standard, and I am forced to use Photoshop just to be able to open the files.

@Techs UK: I'm sure there are some good analyses of FOSS economics, though I'm darned if I can remember any (Ask Jack? ;)
"I still cannot get my head around why I'd spend 8 hours a day coding, then give the software away?"
I don't code, so I don't really know but my guess is that the economics work in a different fashion. For example, I build websites and use WordPress an awful lot. Many people create plugins that _they_ need, and then release them to the public. Ie you were going to do it anyway, so why not let the code run free?

@Toni Korpela: "If you are artists, create audio, video or graphics. Linux is not the best,"

Again, I beg to differ. Inkscape is absolutely amazing piece of drawing software. GIMP is darned good. Scribus seems to be solid and excellent, as good as Quark. And as for video, Cinelerra is top-end stuff and OpenShot is better than any prosumer offering I've seen on McWindows. And audio? Well, take your pick: Ardour, Rosegarden, Audacity, Pure Data, SuperCollider, SooperLooper, JACK etc etc!

> Many people create plugins that _they_ need, and then release them to the public. Ie you were going to do it anyway, so why not let the code run free?
@Jake Rayson: because I want to earn a living. A lot of coders works work for open source companies so they will get paid whatever happens. If you're a freelance content creator (I write for living) then if I create stuff I expect to get paid for it. That's capitalism in action: I have no choice in how the system works, whether or not I despise it. The cost of creation is the research: like the software model, it's create once, get paid many....

"if I create stuff I expect to get paid for it"
Entitlement crap. Just because you expend time to produce something doesn't automatically mean you are going to get paid for it. It has to be something that people are willing to pay for, wrap services around, or monetize in some other way. You could spend 2 years building a 500 foot tall statue of porky the pig out of manure. It doesn't mean anyone is going to pay you a damn thing for it.

Moreover many people create or contribute to open source software (including on occasion myself) because they want to. Not because they expect to get paid for it. They may do it because it feels good to create or help improve something that many people can use to make their lives easier.

Not everybody is a greedy prick or we wouldn't have open-source software at all.

@Jack Schofield

> Downloads are not a good measure of success. A lot of people download stuff and never run it. > A lot more run it for 30 seconds then uninstall it. (I do this a lot myself.) I'd guess most people > who download GIMP give up within a day. As far as I can tell, it's mainly used by people who
> use it for other reasons (they're open source supporters) regardless of the fact that it's crap.

I was simply arguing that the premise that "[relatively] no-one uses GIMP" is incorrect.

Whether you think it's crap or not is irrelevant.

> So the real question is, do you want to satisfy users' needs or do you want to wage a childish
> war on high-priced proprietary software suppliers? Oh, right.

I'd quite like to satisfy users' needs.

Hello Adobe, there's _quite_ the gap in the market for a $200 photoshop that runs on linux! :-)

>Entitlement crap.
>Not everybody is a greedy prick

@Robert Martine Thanks for the kind words.

I write for a living - it's what I do. The stuff I do for fun I'm happy to give away. The stuff I write for money so I can eat etc I would argue is not in principle greed. Or are you one of those lucky people who doesn't need to work?

Jack:

"There was the case where a Trojan was packaged with UnrealIRCd, and nobody noticed for about 7 months"

I followed your link and it seems true that the source for UnrealIRCd was in fact injected with a trojan. However, I don't foresee that being an issue unless you were downloading the source for that piece of software and compiling it yourself. I put my faith in the distributions that compile the software, and I'm guessing strict rules on making sure checksums are in place are used to avoid hacked source from being obtained. As the article mentioned, simply using checksums would have thrown up a flag very early on by those downloading the source. It is disturbing that it went for 7 months though. Nothing is perfect, and hopefully this was a lesson to use tighter security, including checksums.

"Incidentally, VLC is now being used to distribute malware
http://www.itworld.com/security/182757/floss-accept-no-substitutes"

This article explains the VLC issue is with sites issuing fake, not genuine, versions of the VLC media player. To get these fake versions, users would have to download at one of the websites posting the fake versions. Obviously users will do this, not knowing that they should always go to the original site to download. Also, as with the previous example, there would be no way that this fake version with be included with a major GNU/Linux distribution because the source is always taken from the official repository. However I can see more of a problem with VLC on Windows because VLC is not included with the Windows distribution, so users must download and install it separately.

"The fact that it is open source is really no protection at all."

I would have to disagree. Releasing the source for all eyes to look at, and using proper security measures with that source, is an excellent recipe for ensuring the highest level of security. Even the U.S. Department of Defense recommends the use of Open Source Software, mainly for these reasons:

http://cio-nii.defense.gov/sites/oss/2009OSS.pdf

@manek: "If you're a freelance content creator (I write for living) then if I create stuff I expect to get paid for it."
Exactly, it's a different model in action. I'm talking about work that you would do _anyway_, and opening up the source code (or letting it roam on the Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org). An analogy is if you were paid by a hypothetical online magazine which allowed the republishing of your work, it would be no money out of your pocket, so long as you were paid for what you did by the magazine.

@Jake Rayson

For some (perhaps many) creators, you're talking about them giving away their pensions.

One big reason why FOSS survives is because evil corporations pay the salaries of people to contribute to it. It's cheaper for a well-known monopolist such as IBM, for example, to pay programmers to contribute to FOSS than to pay far more programmers to maintain its own failing products. They can contribute to IBM's successful proprietary products (which is almost all of them) instead.

The fact that FOSS is designed to damage the businesses of the companies that invested big bucks in writing the more successful products is an extra advantage. A good example is Sun and IBM investing in the failed (and frankly mediocre) Star Office to damage Microsoft's Office business.

The smarter people in the FOSS world know this perfectly well, but the usual justification is roughly: "as long as we get better FOSS software, why should we care?" Fair enough.

By the way, you can plug GIMP as much as you like, but it's still crap....

@apexwm

OK, I already know you're not interested in anything that might impinge on your religion, but here's yet another case of Linux insecurity for your collection:

Linux Foundation sites down after security breach
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/linux-foundation-sites-down-after-security-breach-10024317/

Jack,

"OK, I already know you're not interested in anything that might impinge on your religion, "

I simply followed up to your examples to expand upon them so that the readers know that they aren't as fatal as you make them seem.

We could go back and forth all day pointing fingers at security breaches. The fact is, no operating system that faces the Internet is completely secure, especially once it is loaded up with applications, but some are more secure than others. We obviously have different opinions as to which is more secure.

@Jake Rayson
>if you were paid by a hypothetical online magazine which allowed the republishing of your work, it would be no money out of your pocket, so long as you were paid for what you did by the magazine.

Sorry that wouldn't work for me. If a publishing house is re-distributing my work so it and other companies can make more money out of it (which is why they do it) I don't see why I should be the only one who doesn't benefit. So in the case you cite, I would expect them to pay me above and beyond what they've already paid for first serial rights.

@purpaboo
> I was simply arguing that the premise that "[relatively] no-one uses GIMP" is incorrect.

Well, I guess I'm a casual GIMP user, although I install the Fedora packages rather than downloading it as a separate application. And all I really use it for is converting PNG (or other) files to JPEGs. There may be other ways to do this, but I'm happy to use GIMP and have absolutely no intention whatsoever of buying Photoshop instead.

@ Jack

"The fact that FOSS is designed to damage the businesses of the companies that invested big bucks in writing the more successful products is an extra advantage. A good example is Sun and IBM investing in the failed (and frankly mediocre) Star Office to damage Microsoft's Office business"

What a load of bull.

""The fact that FOSS is designed to damage the businesses of the companies that invested big bucks in writing the more successful products is an extra advantage. A good example is Sun and IBM investing in the failed (and frankly mediocre) Star Office to damage Microsoft's Office business"

What a load of bull."

I couldn't agree more. The early companies to the table did invest big bucks, but they also took ideas from other competitors as well, so they are just as guilty either way. In fact, today these very same companies even take ideas from open source software (how about IE's tabbed browsing, which Firefox already had well before). Sun, IBM, Oracle (somewhat), Red Hat, and others contribute high quality software to the open source community; like VirtualBox, MySQL, etc. Star Office (currently known as OpenOffice or LibreOffice), is a direct competitor to Microsoft Office, and who benefits from it? The users, because in today's world, they now have a choice, and to add the icing on the cake, one of the choices is free.

@purpaboo
> I was simply arguing that the premise that "[relatively] no-one uses GIMP" is incorrect.

I use the GIMP everyday, which I run on a little known o/s called Windows XP. I have the choice of installed Photoshop if I want, but I find the GIMP much easier to drive. Same as MS Office; I use OpenOffice because the M$ ribbon interface is crap and far too slow.

@Jack,
> The fact that FOSS is designed to damage the businesses
> of the companies that invested big bucks in writing the more
> successful products is an extra advantage....

Once upon a time, there was this company called Netscape.....

@Jack Schofield
> For some (perhaps many) creators, you're talking about them giving away their pensions.
It's a *different* model; as you point out, many corporations fund Free Software as it suits their purpose. They make their money elsewhere. Which is fine.

> By the way, you can plug GIMP as much as you like, but it's still crap....
A fine and reasoned argument ;)
GIMP can be quirky and difficult to learn but no more than Photoshop. Because Photoshop is the industry de facto standard, more people learn Photoshop, and then balk at GIMP (rather like Windows and Linux). For one last time, GIMP is great!

@manek > Sorry that wouldn't work for me.
Which is absolutely fine. That's the lovely thing about Free Software, you have the freedom not to as well.