In the development of free software, should we allow ourselves to emulate proprietary software or should we strive to be better and unique? Is it bad that a lot of our software does emulate pre-existing proprietary software? Do we look like we are uncreative? Does it matter? Or is a good thing to emulate proprietary software so that there are free software alternatives and so that people have a choice? How do you feel about this issue? To emulate or not to emulate... that is the question.
Emulating proprietary software - should we do it?
Short URL: http://fsmsh.com/2246
Most forwarded
Interview with Dave Mohyla, of DTIDATA
Dave Mohyla is the president and founder of dtidata.com, a hard drive recovery facility based in Tampa, Florida.
TM: Where are you based? What does your company do?
DTI Data recovery is based in South Pasadena, Florida which is a suburb of Tampa. We have been here for over 10 years. We operate a bio-metrically secured class 100 clean room where we perform hard drive recovery on all types of hard disks, from laptop hard drives to multi drive RAID systems.
Anybody up to writing good directory software?
Since the very beginning, directories (of any kind) have had a very central role in the internet. (I have recently grown fond of Free Web Directory. Even Slashdot can be considered a directory: a collection of great news and invaluable user-generated comments. As far as software is concerned, doing a quick search on Google about software directories will return the free (as in freedom) software directories like Savannah, SourceForge, Freshmeat and so on, followed by shareware and freeware sites such as FileBuzz, PCWin Download Center and All Freeware (great if you're looking for shareware and freeware, but definitely less comprehensive than their free-as-in-freedom counterparts).
Interview with Mark Shuttleworth
Mark Shuttleworth is the founder of Thawte, the first Certification Authority to sell public SSL certificates. After selling Thawte to Verisign, Mark moved on to training as an astronaut in Russia and visiting space. Once he got back he founded Ubuntu, the leading GNU/Linux distribution. He agreed on releasing a quick interview to Free Software Magazine.
Is better education the key to finding better software?
I read David Jonathon's article Anybody Up To Writing Good Directory Software? the other day, which got me thinking about software directories in general. As David mentioned, many of the software directories one finds when doing a quick google search are free as in beer, not as in freedom. But what interests me is the software directories that already exist, providing a combination of both free as in beer software, and open source software. Sites such as Freeware Downloads and Shareware Download don't advertise themselves as providing free as in liberty software, but each of them have a good selection of open source software available... if you know where to look.
Most emailed
Free Open Document label templates
If you’ve ever spent hours at work doing mailings, cursed your printer for printing outside the lines on your labels, or moaned “There has got to be a better way to do this,” here’s the solution you’ve been looking for. Working smarter, not harder! Worldlabel.com, a manufacture of labels offers Open Office / Libre Office labels templates for downloading in ODF format which will save you time, effort, and (if you want) make really cool-looking labels
Creating a user-centric site in Drupal
A little while ago, while talking in the #drupal mailing list, I showed my latest creation to one of the core developers there. His reaction was "Wow, I am always surprised what people use Drupal for". His surprise is somehow justified: I did create a site for a bunch of entertainers in Perth, a company set to use Drupal to take over the world with Entertainers.Biz.
Update: since writing this article, I have updated the system so that the whole booking process happens online. I will update the article accordingly!
So, why, why do people and companies develop free software?
More and more people are discovering free software. Many people only do so after weeks, or even months, of using it. I wonder, for example, how many Firefox users actually know how free Firefox really is—many of them realise that you can get it for free, but find it hard to believe that anybody can modify it and even redistribute it legally.
When the discovery is made, the first instinct is to ask: why do they do it? Programming is hard work. Even though most (if not all) programmers are driven by their higher-than-normal IQs and their amazing passion for solving problems, it’s still hard to understand why so many of them would donate so much of their time to creating something that they can’t really show off to anybody but their colleagues or geek friends.
Sure, anybody can buy laptops, and just program. No need to get a full-on lab or spend thousands of dollars in equipment. But... is that the full story?
Fun articles
Santa Claus - the most successful open source project
It dawned on me the other day, as I was shopping for the dozens of gifts it seems I have to buy every December, that Santa Claus is the most successful open source project in history. (Bridget @ Illiterarty would agree with that). Santa Claus is essentially a marketing development that is embodied by everyone who stuffs a sock, gives a gift, hosts a dinner or wishes Merry Christmas over the holiday season.
Most emailed
Editorial
When I first started thinking about Free Software Magazine, I was feeling enthusiastic about the dream. I had Dave, Gianluca, and Alan willing to help me, I had established members of the free software community willing to help me out, I had writers volunteering their time and energy for free, and I had a generous offer from OpenHosting for servers, all before I'd proved myself. There was a sense of excitement in the air, and I thought maybe, just maybe, I could make this work.
Case by case
On the one hand, emulating the creations of the proprietary world puts you in a constant position of "chasing taillights", so it's not a good general strategy.
On the other hand, there are some cases where a particular application is so widely appreciated that it is worth it to accomodate the market.
Of course, the prescriptive ("should") approach to this topic suggests a misapprehension of how free software generally gets created. By and large, software gets written because someone with the will to have it and the ability to create it decides to do so. We should never stand in the way of that.
So if we are questioning whether "we" should emulate proprietary software, we probably should examine who the "we" is, first. If 'we' is a group of people with a strategic need for a piece of software that can only be found in a proprietary form, then the answer's probably "yes 'we' should". Hence the FSF's list of critical software to write.
Of course, the primary desires should be to:
which doesn't necessarily mean copying an application exactly. In fact, you can often do a better job by starting from scratch, and considering the needs of the user -- proprietary designs don't always do a good job of that.
So, in the end, proprietary apps should probably just be a part of a balanced, low-budget marketing assessment of what the users in your community need.
It also has to be appreciated that the core market for free software is not the same as the one for proprietary software. There are likely to be some different needs, and filling those needs is a good way to differentiate the free software offering (to use proprietary marketing terminology, of course). For example, free software users are much more likely to be concerned about producing works in open formats themselves, and to accomodating collaborative activities.
That's why when I wrote about free software CAD needs, I emphasized the need for a collaborative CAD system which could allow people to work over the internet on engineering projects. A simple copy of AutoCAD wouldn't provide that.
i second this - case by case
IMO, FOSS programmers at big projects (not the fringe ones at sf.net for example), have better GUI ideas and better Usability sense than the dominant proprietary programmers or their products.
It is inherent in the FOSS coder's thinking style: My product will be new and different. That leads us to the bigger well-known problem of "too much choice" in the FOSS world.
Nowadays, most M$ products are roughly copies of FOSS or free(Java, VJ++/C#) ideas or layouts(Vista).
However, we dont go filing patents and they do. We have no $$$$$$$'s and they do. So, for example, they sent XPde a legal notice which shut the project officially.
OTOH,
FOSS realizes that the layman alays wants *complete* UI compatibility. And The developer ecosystem wants maximum API-compatibility. So, what do you do to make your cool new FOSS program acceptable to the layman?
Firefox is a tremendous example of how things went right - yet it's market share is just 10% as of today, May 2007.
The layman also accepts, without a single protest, anything that the "latest version of XYZ" if it is supported by enough ads and hype. In his brain, the hype simply kills the fact that he is actually working at learning a new interface.
By contrast, look at how FOSS programs are introduced to the new user:
Timn00b: Hi all, i wanna know a cool foss app for zipping multiple files maybe using a dos prompt
JimHacker: http://www.7-zip.org
JimHacker: it also has a better compression ratio format called 7z. Check it out
See the difference?
It does not come and hit him the face ten times a day. It is not the thing that will deliver him from his file compresion woes.
And where is the all-important point that says that 7-zip does not show a (moving) "OK/I Accept" button and a guilt-count (no. of archives opened so far) nag screen like Winzip does.
It's acutally a huge nuisance removed, but it is not even marketed at the minimum information level.
That's why and that's where FOSS adoption fails.
OpenOffice is not so "cool" because it appears slow and the GUI widgets don't have the traditional win32 single-pixel finish at the edges.
Think again on this one. - it's that ONE PIXEL MARGIN that makes a difference - I've heard so many say - "Microsoft products look so cool and sleek". So there you are.
Another problem IMO with FOSS is that things are structured logically, for thinking users, unlike the monopolist/leading programs - those are configured for simple, non-thinking, minimum-use laymen. Structured is for logical minds - clearly not for laymen - they often just need teh one thing to be done - and configuration of the program is mountain-climbing for them. Unlike for FOSS guys who love the act of tweaking the system.
I can't recall where, but a very experienced programmer who has lived for a long time in both worlds, noted at a forum that Windows and Linux are for different people. There should not be competition, but co-existence.
That IMO, is the crux.
The problem start when M$ wants to rob Linux's share. Do we hate Apple so much as we hate M$. Apple is far worse, at least from my distance, at allowing people to do new things with their products. But, they don't forcibly pull users away from other markets. They stay put, every now and then trying for a small increment in the user base - yes, now they're trying to get into people's minds via other means - like music players and stuff - but essentially within limits.
Then, there is the patent and litigation issue for UIs and methods.
So, I personally think FOSS should keep a clean room approach. FOSS and GNU/Linux are never going to dominate. And they should not as well - because if we do that, what different are we from M$?
At the same time, if M$ tries suing and stuff, we should also end up with millions in victorious suits for *their having copied* from FOSS programs. That's a really fair situation. That also means that they have to sit and think new things as well.
I've heard of management practices like making two fully capable teams work on the same product and they compete with each other and the losing team's code is just thrown or shelved. That is a colossal waste of everyone's money. And users bear the cost. Surely, their coders with prestigious academic backgrounds know better than copying.
In such a situation therefore, case-by-case seems to be the best approach.
Yes
Look, we've already got the geeks on our side. So, who do we have left to convert? The non-geeks. Would they be more likely to use something that looks like something they are familiar with, or something they aren't? I know my parents would never have used OpenOffice.org if it looked different from Microsoft Office. In fact, they were more impressed than upset that it looked so similar to Microsoft Office.
Alienating people doesn't help bring them to your side. We should try to make free software as comfortable to the end user as possible.
--
Andrew Min
Look at Firefox. It does the
Look at Firefox. It does the same that it's proprietary competition (display web pages), but better. Trying to replace a proprietary product doesn't mean always being behind them.
Firefox isn't an emulation
Actually, Firefox (along with the entire Mozilla fleet) is a perfect example of filling application niches without emulating the proprietary competition. The only thing that you can say that Firefox has "emulated" about IE is that it focuses exclusively on web browsing, rather than a full suite of internet activities as does the full Mozilla package.
For an emulator, perfection is achieved by looking exactly like the emulated package, not just by accomplishing the same tasks. And that's why an emulator is doomed to always be "chasing taillights" -- you've defined success to be somebody else's work, so unless you are copying them perfectly, you're behind. And the most you can ever achieve on this scale is to be "as good as" the emulated package (and for an actively developed package, you are unlikely even to achieve this level of success).
Firefox, on the other hand, strives to be better than IE in the same application niche, dealing with the same types of data formats, not "the same as" IE. And that's where free software apps need to be setting their sights, IMHO.
To a point
In general, I agree with Terry, above. I'd just add that, when we're beginning to cover a particular need, replicating existing programs, whether proprietary or Free, is a reasonable place to start. But we shouldn't be beholden to the particular design or implementation of the software we're emulating (though we shouldn't throw out good ideas whatever their source).
Our particular advantage is that we can, collectively, write software _faster_ and more effectively than most proprietary vendors (not that we always do); so, while we may spend some time "chasing taillights", we can pull up even with them and begin to innovate ourselves (and we can innovate in the meantime, of course). I think we're beginning to see that happen on a large scale, now, and it's terribly exciting.
All of the above
We should emulate the good and rewrite the bad. We should innovate beyond the proprietary offerings. We certainly shouldn't let all those R&D dollars (which consumers pay for) go to waste. Copy. Stand on the shoulders of giants. Chase tail lights when they are there to chase AND (only) if you don't know what direction to take OR if it is the right direction to go. Then, when they are pulled over for a break, over-take. Or, if they appear to be going in the wrong direction we should go our own way.
2 points: - If proprietary
2 points:
- If proprietary sw is so widespread and popular then emulation should be done to ease ppl who want to make a "switch".
- Instead of letting proprietary sw guide our devp, y not develop something better maybe using a different approach and beat them at their own game by providing better alternatives to *proprietary sw*. for once, they will start emulating us!