On 1/16/2011 4:08 PM, Robert Mark Wallace wrote:
I was under the impression that most of the open source software for
Windows are really Windows editions of Linux programs. Correct me if
I am wrong. I call things like the AOL Browser "no charge software"
because you can't modify it, you can only use it without paying for
it.
Well, there's plenty of "free" and even truly "open source" software
that runs only on Windows, so I would presume in such cases that it's
not a port of Linux programs.
Also correct me if I am wrong, but a big drawback for open source
windows software is that the programmer still can't get access to the
Windows source code.
Then it's not really "open source". It's just freeware. There's a
difference. There's nothing to prevent someone from releasing true open
source programs on Windows, just like there's nothing to prevent someone
from releasing (or even selling) programs on Linux with no source code
available. In short, it's not Linux vs. Windows, it's the license you
distribute under. Note that there's no need for a Linux application
author to see the Linux source code, so long as the interfaces they want
to use are fully documented. In some cases, where the specs are a bit
hazy, getting to the source code might help, but it's not a hard and
fast requirement.
Also correct me if I am wrong but I though that the reason why my
LInux install is half the size of a Windows install of similar
software because Linux software writers can go right to the kernal,
and Windows software writers can't.
Windows has kernel level access, though much of it is apparently reduced
performance (MS supposedly keeps the good stuff to itself, so its
products run better than competitors'). Of course, it depends on what
exactly you mean by "go right to the kernel". In neither case (Linux or
Windows) should an application programmer be messing with the kernel,
just using its documented services. It's generally not a good idea to be
adding low level stuff to the OS just to make your particular
application run better.
One thing that Windows is burdened with is a tremendous amount of legacy
applications that MS wants to run. So, there is much code in there that
supports older stuff, bloating the OS size.
I started this thread to try to get the readers to think in terms of
finding new markets for LInux, not to start getting into Windows.
No one here (including me) is suggesting that we encourage people to use
Windows. However, we must accept that Windows is a huge existing install
base, and many people will never switch to any other OS. For them, the
best we can do is help with open source software that runs under Windows.
I also have some real concerns in that I have downloaded a lot of
viruses from places like Download.com. I use Linux because I can get
all of my software from more secure sources (just about all that I use
is from the Columbia U mirror of Ubuntu.)
Linux does have some architecture that makes it harder for a virus
writer to infect the entire system (beyond just the unfortunate user's
own files). But for the most part, Windows (being so huge an install
base) has been a much more lucrative market, and so malware authors have
concentrated their attacks there. When any other OS (including various
cell phone and tablet systems) gets that big, virus writers will attack it.
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Phil M Perry<[email protected]> wrote:
Uh, that's not quite what I was saying. In reference to a recent thread, the
discussion was how to expand our audience to people interested in Open
Source (not just free as in beer, but free as in speech) in general, while
we have a name that says "Linux". To drop Linux from the name (or dropping
"LUG") would be discarding a valuable brand name, yet how do we attract
people who want to stay on OS X or even Windows? I think the best suggestion
was to keep the MHVLUG brand name, but to expand our mission in a "subtitle"
mentioning "Open Source Software" and subtly de-emphasize "Linux". See the
new MHVLUG.org site title.
On 1/9/2011 5:45 PM, Chris Knadle wrote:
On Sunday, January 09, 2011 04:45:51 pm Phil M Perry wrote:
For something other than straight Linux, we first need to resolve the
issue brought up earlier, namely, expanding our target audience beyond
Linux (preferably without fully dropping our current name). We will have
an easier time getting people into Linux if we get them into open source
software such as OO first. Even then, many will prefer to stay with the
devil they know (Windows). No one is going to come to a Linux Users
Group meeting if 1) they fear that a bunch of wild-eyed nerds are going
to evangelize them into switching to a non-Windows OS, and 2) won't make
the connection anyway -- "it's a /Linux/ group, right?"
Wait... huh? You say "preferably without dropping our current name", and
then
point to the name "Linux" as being an issue. ? What are you suggesting?
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org
http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug
Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium
Feb 2 - Zimbra
Mar 2 - MHVLUG 8th Anniversary - Show and Tell
Apr 6 - Introduction to IPv6
_______________________________________________
Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org
http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug
Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium
Feb 2 - Zimbra
Mar 2 - MHVLUG 8th Anniversary - Show and Tell
Apr 6 - Introduction to IPv6
