Friday, June 22. 2007Amarok 2 on windows - A rant
Ever since it was first announced that Amarok 2.0 would be available for windows, there have been mixed reactions. Most responses have been quite enthusiastic, but some seem to think that releasing Amarok for windows will give people one less reason to switch to GNU/Linux or other FOSS operating systems.
When the announcement of the new Amarok 1.4.6 release was posted to digg.com this argument reared its head again and I decided I would write a post about why I think that releasing Amarok (or any other free software program) for Windows is actually a good idea, if your goal is to attract people to alternatives. (disclaimer: I am reusing a comment I wrote on digg last night) While it might be true that a few people would be willing to switch operation system based on a single killer app, I find it far more plausible that people switch if they can have the same tried and true programs as they are used to available on the new platform. What most non technical people are actually using is not an operating system, but rather a collection of applications. This makes it difficult to even explain why they should care about switching, just to have to relearn a heap of new applications. By getting as much free software as possible running on top of Windows, we are in effect making Windows less and less important, to the point where, from the non technical users point of view, the only difference is if you want the expensive Dell with windows, or the cheaper, but otherwise identical one with Linux. Take my girlfriend for instance, she is (still) running windows, but the main apps she uses are firefox, openoffice, gaim and inkscape. As these are all available on GNU/Linux and other free platforms as well, her migration can be relatively painless once the last few games she plays run on Wine. Also, for the argument of the "killer app only available on linux" to have any effect, the Windows user would still have to somehow be exposed to Amarok, and for most, this will never happen. (They are not all lucky enough to have a friendly Gearhead to show them the way) Finally, I would not call what we are doing at the moment porting to windows, it more a case of getting it for (almost) free since QT4 and kdelibs4 have all been ported to windows already. It would most likely take a lot of effort to keep someone else from porting it to windows if we do not, and this kind of artificial scarcity is not what free software is about. Cheers  - Nikolaj Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I would add that there are people out there who doubt that applications exist for linux because they have never seen one. If one can tell them that they already use them the fear of an completely unknown system would be gone.
Matthias
I have been a Windows (Microsoft) user since the late 1980's. The reason was twofold. One I could get apps that I could use right out of the box. Two I am not nor ever been a programmer. That's what kept me away from linux. Last week I got an ubuntu setup disk and am trying to learn it. I am having some problems right now trying to find drivers for my existing hardware.
I just ask that you guys bear with us non programmers a little...we are coming to your side slowly.
I've been thinking about this too for that past few days and I totally agree with you.
When one will be using all the apps from KDE on his windows, the only difference will be the platform. I believe Linux/KDE is at advantage here because it's a much more improved platform...
Excellent points. My sentiments exactly. First people have to get used to Kontact instead of Outlook, digiKam instead of whatever-they-use, Kopete instead of AIM/GTalk/ICQ/What-Have-You. Making the switch to Linux is already hard enough without also relearning apps at the same time.
Speaking as a gearhead, Ubuntu makes it much easier -- but with all Gnome software. 
I think you got it exactly right.
The reason why Windows is dominant on the desktop is that most people don't care which OS is technically superior. The truth is that people are used to running their apps and feel (for some reason) empowered by the Microsoft point and click mentality. They use what they know. Do you know how many people abuse Excel as a database? brrrr. Furthermore, it is relatively easy for an interested individual to learn a new environment. For a whole office or even company? Not so easy. Helping them switch to a better environment one app at a time is the way to go IMHO. Go amarok and go KDE4.
Good point.
I also get this question from time to time, but I just ingore them as it's unlikly to convice the hardliners. Once your program is up and running fine, nobody will complain that it's now platform independent. And ignoring the chance getting a much wider userbase is just stupid
The switch to Linux was easy for me because I was already using Firefox, OpenOffice.org and Psi on Windows.
Remember the first thing people ask when considering Linux is "will I still be able to use my apps? (eg photoshop, word etc)" If they are already using things like Amarok on Windows or even Mac because they are so much better than their Mac or Windows-only counterparts, then the switch to Linux will not only be easier because they are familiar with the software, but make more sense because the software has already proven itself to them. I beleive the correct balance is where most of Linux's software is avaliable for Windows and Mac, and we switch to Linux not for these apps themselves but for the fantastic KDE4 desktop and Linux's sheer technical superiority.
Good post, I completely agree with you! Besides, it's you that develop Amarok and it's not like you're getting paid for it (AFAIK), you're free to do whatever you like
Rock on!
Nice post, that wasn't a rant at all!
I am VERY happy that amarok will be coming to windows, simply because I have to use windows at work and having amarok will make the experience that little bit less painful. And you are very right, the more linux programs windows users are used to, the easier the transition. However, it has to be said that there were times when one of my primary reasons for booting linux was to have amarok, so we will lose a few people. But at the end of the day, as you said, "this kind of artificial scarcity is not what free software is about". And that's spot on
Developers, developers, developers, developers, producing applications, applications, applications, applications. That's why Windows carries the weight these days, because it has the applications.
If there is something excellent on a Linux desktop system that people will want (i.e. Amarok), they'll switch from Windows. That's the way this whole switching thing works. There has to be motivation. If it's available on Windows then all you're doing is increasing the pool of applications that make people stay on Windows. Some peoples' logic, like yours, is so utterly confused over this that Microsoft must be laughing its backside off. You're trying to tell me that you have so much confidence in your free operating system and desktop platform that you're going to spend an awful lot of time and effort porting something from that platform to Windows? Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? Your users will view it in the same light unfortunately. They'll take Amarok and run it on Windows for as long as it continues to run, and they won't even register that there is another platform besides Windows or understand why they need it when oh so generous people like yourself are working for Microsoft for free.
Microsoft also knows with widespread crossplatform apps, web applications, their whole business is slowing moving into irrelevancy. In 10 years they will be another IBM (if they aren't already), still a large company that does reasonably well, but no longer the company that sets the agenda.
Honestly though I don't care much about strategy, I just want my girlfriend to use Amarok.
> Microsoft also knows with widespread
> crossplatform apps, web applications, > their whole business is slowing moving > into irrelevancy. Well, not really. There's still more than enough room for good quality rich applications built on a good quality development architecture on a specific system. Windows still scores there, which is why other platforms are going to continue to struggle against it - and in response people will say good open source applications should be ported to Windows!  > In 10 years they will be another IBM > (if they aren't already), still a > large company that does reasonably > well, but no longer the company that > sets the agenda. Ahhhh. Just remember the process by which that came about - how the IBM of twenty five years lost what they had - and what Microsoft did to get to that state. Microsoft built a pretty decent client where developers felt more comfortable than just about anything else, and they did that by being extremely selective about how cross platform all this was. > Honestly though I don't care much > about strategy, I just want my > girlfriend to use Amarok. That's great if all you want to be is a developer developing software for the Windows platform, and effectively being a MVP without getting paid or getting any benefits. It also raises the question of why you see the need for open source software in the first place. Do you not want to help free and open source platforms in view of the fact that Amarok is an open source project? Focus on getting your girlfriend to use a free desktop platform, and if she can't, then try hard to focus on why that is and channel your energy there. Many companies, organisations and projects have taken the easy way out of that by porting to Windows, and they are always at a disadvantage. Example. With Amarok on Windows all you're doing is bolstering support for things that you can never feasibly support in the long run. On Windows, people will inevitably run into Windows Media files a lot more than they otherwise would do (to users Amarok may well look useless without it), and Microsoft controls Windows Media. Rest assured that Microsoft will restrict what players will be able to play these in the future as the DRM gets ever more restrictive. Why not just get your girlfriend to use Windows Media Player instead? It would be easier. Bingo. You just helped to keep a proprietary OS in place, promoting a proprietary format which has helped to ensure that your open source application is useless to people in the long run.
I agree with the blog entry. I got my wife to switch to ubuntu AFTER she got comfortable with firefox and openoffice. It would have been impossible to do it all at once. The other things that really helped was beryl, and the fact that windows failed frequently.
That said, why would an amarok or kde developer be concerned with promoting linux? I would think they would be more concerned with promoting amarok and kde. Porting to the most popular platform in the market is an obvious way to make amarok and other kde apps more popular and gain developers. Look at Firefox and Openoffice. As a matter of fact, kde has worked on proprietary platforms for a long time. I used kde 1.0 in solaris back the 90's. To this date, kde still works on many proprietary unixes. Why should windows & mac be any different? just because they are more popular? Thanks kde guys for the good work, and I am looking forward to using kde apps in windows at work (I can't do anything about that).
Absolutely true. Most people don't even know what an OS is. Those that do almost always immediately ask, "but does it run all the same programs."
Same goes for converting from an office suite. I tried to convert my office to OpenOffice from MS Office and it didn't fly because the documents didn't look exactly the same in open office. The conversion was absolutely possible but no one wanted to do the extra work -- even though it was a very small amount of work -- in getting the documents looking good in Open Office. The point is, the less effort end-users have to put forth in switching to operating systems, the more transparent and therefor more likely, they are to do it (or to do it for them without them really noticing, as in an office environment). Making awesome OSS applications like Amarok available on Windows makes it even easier to say, "Why not switch?" instead of, "Why switch?" Plus, it demonstrates the extraordinary quality and flexibility of open source software to anyone who might be skeptical. Mike
I disagree completely with the decision to code Amarok for Windoze. You've just gotten rid of one argument I could use to say that Linux has superior applications. Windoze users approach oss as free - as in beer - not free speech. I've seen Windoze users using Mozilla because it didn't cost them anything, even though they keep referring to oss as "open sores".
I'm also concerned that we'll soon be seeing Amarok used more on Windoze than on Linux and the developer community will start expanding on Amarok and its plugins to work only on Windoze as we've seen with other oss software that has gone this route. Your suggestion that once people realize the same software will run on Linux that they use now on Windoze will push people to Linux, is just not the reality. What is the reality is that Windoze will continue to have MORE great applications available for it than does Linux. This move does a disservice to the Linux community by moving one more "killer app" to the evil empire. Although you wrap your arguments for doing so, as a noble gesture, I see it as just ego. You and I know that Amarok will soon be running more on Windoze boxes than Linux boxes. It's a great piece of software - one of the best in its category and unfortunately no longer something we few Linux fans can brag about. Shame!
"Usability" guys Usability and User Friendlyness, what makes Windows the king (even though some apps are crap).
Why a normal person has to be a technical to use computer? I'm a Designer (and care about software loghtwaitness) I tried installing GIMP and I gave up. I'm waiting for Suse or Ubantu developers will involve few Human Computer Interaction PROs to replace Windows in near future. Chirag Rana
Windows and Userfriendliness? Good joke.
I remember the days when Linux was user-unfriendly, because it couldn't run all those websites out there (since most of them were coded "IE only"). Then came firefox. Being cross platform, its usage quickly reached the "critical mass". There are still "IE only" sites, but nowadays, this is regarded as bad design. "Good" sites run on firefox as well. Or do you refer to the old "Windows is userfriendly because I don't need an administrator" thing? Yup, and when the system has gotten really messed up, guess who's being called? Let me further state that I agree with the Nikolaj: Two small steps are easier than one big. Cross platform applications (such as Firefox, and hopefully soon Amarok) increase the number of users who can switch to Linux. In order to have them actually make the switch, OpenSource must be percieved as something "cool". And that's exactly where Amarok comes in.
I already said it. Porting Amarok (or any K application) to Windows/OSX is a nice idea as long as the user know that it'll get a better application (more features, better integration) on a OpenSource OS (Linux, *BSD, whatever). That will be perfect, people will just a find nice motivator, they'll not just get the same apps, they'll be even better, and in top of that, they'll run on a more secure OS, stable, and free.
Just my 1 cent. I apologize in advance for my poor english. See you later.
To all those saying "cross-plattform application reduce the incentive for switching to OSS operating systems".
Guys, do the math: Let's assume, we now have a high incentive for those who can switch to Linux to actually make the switch: 50%. Let's further assume, cross-plattform applications multiply the number of potential switchers by 10. (should be no problem due to the small desktop market share Linux enjoys right now). So, ceteris paribus, the rate of potential switchers who actually make the switch can decrease to 5% without losing anything. And that does not take into account the fact that through cross-plattform applications the usage of alternative operating systems (such as Linux or *BSD) becomes socially more acceptable. Most users think "application == file format == protocol".
Well.
Amarok is superb! But be serious, few people are going to change OS for it. The only problem I see is the drain on resource keeping all the ports up to date. I would really hate to the windows version ever overtake the GNU/Linux version. I imagine the overhead is not that great. Having a pool of open and free software available on as many platforms as possible just means the OS is less important...and Microsoft really do care about that! In any case it is not about bashing Microsoft. I use windows and GNU/Linux at work and GNU/Linux at home. I like the fact I have the same apps on both wherever possible. When people decide hmmm! I can save money to make the change and still keep all my apps. And then find out "Hey this is nice!" then they have discovered a better way. All for it Nikolaj! Full point for standing up to be counted . Amarok would be my first choice on any OS.
In regards to some of the commentary suggesting it's a bad idea to port Amarok to Windows...
I wish people would shut up with that drivel. My biggest reasons for not bothering with a switch to Linux? Too many applications missing, poor accessibility features^, hardware issues, and too much trouble to get what few games I do play to run. In fact, let us take music players into example. On Windows, I like Foobar2000. There's no native port to Linux, as of the last time I looked, which means I need an alternative music player, right? Sure, there's XMMS, which looks like Winamp 2.x as a music player, but I hated Winamp. That instantly rules out that application, because I'd be very uncomfortable with it.Amarok looks like it comes much closer to what I expect out of a music player, but I'm not willing to give up my entire operating system to something new, just to see if I like it. People are entitled to feel that when they get a computer, they don't have to absorb the feeling of "I need a degree in how to use my computer". What may be fine for a person who loves to sit there, compile his own applications, and generally do whatever he so chooses... may not be the best solution for a grandmother, who needs Narrator to read back the text on a window because she can't see all that well. I'd be happy to see Amarok ported over to Windows. It'd help give me one less reason to depend on this operating system if it works the way I hope it does. (^ Regarding accessibility features, I sometimes use the magnifying glass here on Windows, when my eyes give me trouble. I also use the MouseKeys feature, to at least manipulate the mouse with my numpad, since I haven't been able to get a single bloody distro to recognize any of my PS/2 mice (it's a bleeding normal mouse, man. two buttons. scroll wheel. optical), and I know none of the keyboard commands for the UI. Rather than being stranded, I, of course, would love to have my feeps and eat 'em too. Ubuntu is getting closer to my needs, fortunately, now that there are accessibility tools there.)
Consider iTunes. Apple uses it to showcase how they do software, and people love it. Their market share, although it has not dethroned MS, has certainly improved. It would stand to reason that a similar effect would occur if Amarok is well received on the windows platform.
Further, the argument that we shouldn't open Amarok since it allows our users to continue to us Windows is against the open source movement. The purpose of open source is to allow you to use software the way you want to, and enable the user to choose. Why, then, do we insist that we should keep our software Linux only?
I would just like to say that if we yell and scream every time an open source program gets ported to Windows or any other OS, then we are no better as a community then that of windows or any other closed source system. Open source is about open access (liberty). If you want to wall of your garden to Windows, then you are taking liberty from some one else.
"Take my girlfriend for instance, she is (still) running windows, but the main apps she uses are firefox, openoffice, gaim and inkscape. As these are all available on GNU/Linux and other free platforms as well, her migration can be relatively painless once the last few games she plays run on Wine."
Same here: My girlfriend's main apps were Firefox, Gaim and Winamp on windows. On her new PC I have installed a Zenwalk Linux as default boot. Zenwalk provides Firefox, Gaim and Audacious (Winamp clone). Most time she is happy with Linux now. She only boots Windows for playing games. Without same apps on both OS this would be impossible!
Think in a different way.
Amarok on windows gives me one more reason to switch to the open source. After using Firefox and few other Open source softwares, I'm convinced to switch to Linux once it becomes as good as windows in terms of Usability and accessibility. I'm waiting....may be few more months.
When my sister visited me few days ago she just sat on my PC without asking, booted pidgin, chatted with my mom a bit, did something on firefox and when I entered the room and asked
"So, how do you like linux?" she made big "WTF" eyes and said "Wha? This is linux? I didn't even realize!" Well, that was just because all of her usuall apps were on top she didn't really care about KDE desktop looking a bit different than windoze here and there. This is just one case, but most pople that visit me can't believe that, from what they see, linux is quite user friendly already. Yeah, sure, there's some things that person still has to get used to, but all of those can be solved with fast googling or asking on distributions IRC channel... Of course, it's much easier if person has to get used only to changes at OS, not all those different apps.
I think porting Amarok to Windows is a great idea. Free software on Windows, such as Firefox, was one of the biggest things that lead me to Linux.
So of course, the obvious question is...
when when when? I'm mad excited about this - I'll leave the Linux v Windows debate to those who care. Amarok is great, and the majority of the reason why I stay in linux when I miss grub's timeout.
I have to agree. The other point I would like to mention, sorry if it has already been mentioned here, when we are forced to use windows, school, job, etc, we still want to be able to use our Linux programs. I would love to have Amarok, Firefox or Konqueror, The Gimp, OO.o, Kate, etc at any of the above examples. I know most of the ones listed already are available, but they still make good examples.
Just my thoughts, posted from Konqueror.
|
Amarok LinksCalendar
QuicksearchCategoriesSyndicate This BlogBlog AdministrationWe Listen To... Powered by
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
