Please do not port software to Windows (2001)(fefe.de)
fefe.de
Please do not port software to Windows (2001)
http://www.fefe.de/nowindows/
43 comments
No, the author doesn't try to limit anyone's freedom, he only asks people to understand him and to work against proprietary platforms, not prohibits them to do anything.
He doesn't prohibit them because he can't. He directly says as much in the second line of his piece. IF he could limit you, he would.
He then goes on to say that he won't permit his software to be compatible with other platforms like Visual Studio, _even at the cost of performance_.
If that's not cutting your nose off to spite your face, it's still definitely a direct attempt to limit your freedom.
He then goes on to say that he won't permit his software to be compatible with other platforms like Visual Studio, _even at the cost of performance_.
If that's not cutting your nose off to spite your face, it's still definitely a direct attempt to limit your freedom.
No, he doesn't say that if he could he would limit you and that he won't permit his software to be compatible.
He just says that he won't do it and explains why you should not either. That's hardly limiting you from doing anything.
Even though I don't agree with his position (I fit in the "I don't care if it works on Windows or not, if you care pull requests are always welcome" camp), it's a reasonable one to have.
Even though I don't agree with his position (I fit in the "I don't care if it works on Windows or not, if you care pull requests are always welcome" camp), it's a reasonable one to have.
Of course he does. By choosing a GNU license he explicitly limits the choices available to anyone that might make use of his software in their own software projects. That's the whole point of the license to limit the freedoms of developers in favor of users... his favored group. Even then, his plea is for developers to willingly limit user choice in regard to proprietary software. Sure, his license doesn't legally prevent this, but he's asking developers to de facto limit user freedom to choose their operating environment in favor of his approved systems.
If he were merely trying to convince users to move to Libre systems while making no plea to the developers that might otherwise enable users to choose against his wishes, you might have a point: but that's not his goal.
If he were merely trying to convince users to move to Libre systems while making no plea to the developers that might otherwise enable users to choose against his wishes, you might have a point: but that's not his goal.
The author (Fefe) is a well-known member of the Chaos Computer Club (CCC). He has a well-known blog (in German) about hacker news that is widely read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_von_Leitner
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fefes_Blog
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_von_Leitner
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fefes_Blog
The CCC however hosts many productive, far less hostile members and positions!
Not that you implied different, but I think that this text isn't a great example for the many cool things the CCC does.
https://www.ccc.de/en/
Not that you implied different, but I think that this text isn't a great example for the many cool things the CCC does.
https://www.ccc.de/en/
Yes, I agree. Also, this text is quite old and isn't all that representative of his blog either. The blog takes controversial positions, but is entertaining at the same time. It's sort of like a yellow-press newspaper for CCC hackers, if that makes sense.
What an amazingly childish attitude. It's hard to have any respect for extremists like this - and that's exactly what they are. Extremists.
Don't worry, nobody will.
If you hate people who use windows, then don't be surprised if they do same to you.
If you hate people who use windows, then don't be surprised if they do same to you.
Looking at the list of code that this person created, I don't think it's wanted on Windows anyway. It's just a bunch of low-level utils that are already built-in to Windows or have better third-party alternatives.
If this guy had built something good like VLC media player - nobody would have listened to him and it would have been forked, ported and his version would have been forgotten by now.
(Oh and I bet more than half of his crummy apps will easily run on Apple's OS and Apple is arguably worse than Microsoft had ever been.)
If this guy had built something good like VLC media player - nobody would have listened to him and it would have been forked, ported and his version would have been forgotten by now.
(Oh and I bet more than half of his crummy apps will easily run on Apple's OS and Apple is arguably worse than Microsoft had ever been.)
I always find this sort of argument in the name of freedom interesting and perhaps a bit disingenuous. The GNU activists (for lack of a better generalization) actually do not argue for more freedom of choice, but rather only for who should have that freedom: whether freedom of choice rightfully belongs to the developer or the user, the producer or the consumer. By arguing chiefly for "greater freedom" they avoid the issue of why they consider the producer of a product as deserving a lesser moral latitude than a consumer of the product; their appeal becomes not a rational appeal for why, on moral grounds, a developer should be less free and instead make an emotional appeal to the users that they are entitled to the product as a moral imperative. It seems to me, the GNU activist is not making an argument about freedom whatever, but is essentially arguing for an application of altruism to the world of software development.
I think the author of the article makes that alternative intent of the movement clear in that they are uncomfortable with the freedom actually offered by GNU licenses. If even as a user of GNU software you somehow can perceived as helping a non-Libre developer (no matter how indirectly) you are condemnable morally by the reckoning of the author. I find this consistent with my assertion that the argument is not one of greater freedom, but philosophically an altruistic one.
I think the author of the article makes that alternative intent of the movement clear in that they are uncomfortable with the freedom actually offered by GNU licenses. If even as a user of GNU software you somehow can perceived as helping a non-Libre developer (no matter how indirectly) you are condemnable morally by the reckoning of the author. I find this consistent with my assertion that the argument is not one of greater freedom, but philosophically an altruistic one.
This article seems polite enough. The author gives some rational reasons, and at least marks the opinion parts with "I feel" type qualifications.
Why is everyone just picking apart the logic behind this? It makes me (a Linux user) think that Windows-ecosystem people feel entitled to a port of all software, "because Windows".
Why is everyone just picking apart the logic behind this? It makes me (a Linux user) think that Windows-ecosystem people feel entitled to a port of all software, "because Windows".
> It makes me (a Linux user) think that Windows-ecosystem people feel entitled to a port of all software, "because Windows".
Actually it's quite the contrary, when you maintain a Windows-only piece of software you get constantly bugged by the few dozen Linux / OS X users.
I mean, your OS selection happened because "the many benefits your favorite OS brings you over Windows are way more important than not having software".
If you really want to run Windows software, why not install Wine, VirtualBox, or... Windows?
Actually it's quite the contrary, when you maintain a Windows-only piece of software you get constantly bugged by the few dozen Linux / OS X users.
I mean, your OS selection happened because "the many benefits your favorite OS brings you over Windows are way more important than not having software".
If you really want to run Windows software, why not install Wine, VirtualBox, or... Windows?
Attitudes like this are one of the many reasons why porting complicated OSS software (like SageMath) to Windows is so hard.
Hardly. This attitude is very rare among FOSS devs, the more common one being "I don't care if it works on Windows or not, as I don't use it; if you are willing to make it work on Windows with in way that does not make codebase suck too much for the rest of the world, go ahead, I accept patches".
You are right - this is just one of many difficulties...
Well, I consider it perfectly fine and in line of what one can expect from FOSS. I develop what I want to develop, and you develop what you want. If we can collaborate, great, if not, we create separate projects.
A couple years later the author was involved in a security audit for Windows Vista: https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a81a5919
He knows I can just open up a linux vm right???
Well this is stupid, People need their freedom limited to make the software easier to use to some extent.
So it's stupid argument he makes for his bias against windows. You like linux ? Fine, use it as you will. But don't prevent from others use whatever they feel comfortable to use. And nobody will listen to him. Unless he made his own specific Licence. Which could be problematic. But this kind of extreme behavior won't help people try to use Linux.
Sure, then don't complain others don't port their software to your platform of choice.
Sun? This must be 10 years old at least... (Or the author has not stepped out from the basement where he/she lives in the last decade)
Also after having checked his/her works I'm not sure why would anyone want to use them (on windows or otherwise). For most of them there are other alternatives with less bigot authors for whom, if needed, one might even send contribution.
Bigots like Stallman or this author do the most harm to the image of free software movement.
Also after having checked his/her works I'm not sure why would anyone want to use them (on windows or otherwise). For most of them there are other alternatives with less bigot authors for whom, if needed, one might even send contribution.
Bigots like Stallman or this author do the most harm to the image of free software movement.
Freeloading seems to be ok for you, but if the free software comes with any kind of sentiment or vision, you call the authors bigots? Thanks. Noted.
In my definition of freedom no visionary should tell me what can I do or can't. Actually I don't consider GPL and derivatives free licenses.
That's great for you and all. And should you ever publish open source software, slap on any license you wish.
Calling other people bigots because you don't think their idea of free is free enough, however, is very bad taste.
Calling other people bigots because you don't think their idea of free is free enough, however, is very bad taste.
A gentleman does not argue about taste.
I beg to differ. Especially if anyone's public actions or expressions are of bad taste, it ought to be a matter of discussion.
Matters of preference (another meaning of "taste"), however, are hard to argue about.
Matters of preference (another meaning of "taste"), however, are hard to argue about.
> I beg to differ. Especially if anyone's public actions or expressions are of bad taste, it ought to be a matter of discussion.
I agree. that is why we are discussing why calling people who use windows ignorant supporters of evil is a form of bigotry.
I agree. that is why we are discussing why calling people who use windows ignorant supporters of evil is a form of bigotry.
> calling people who use windows ignorant supporters of evil
Huh? Where does it say that in the post? I'm getting the feeling that someone insulted your favorite OS and now you think they are fanatic bigots. The text over 15 years old. Maybe you just don't remember the Windows and Microsoft from back then.
There are many great visions!
But next to enabeling, productive visions there are also visions that end up making things worse.
I can understand that assessments differ, but I can see that this author clearly and explicitly envisions to force others into his preferred systems by encouraging to crippel their enviroment to make their everyday life worse.
This is not exactly the kind of vision I would like to support. I'm all in for positive, productive visions though.
But next to enabeling, productive visions there are also visions that end up making things worse.
I can understand that assessments differ, but I can see that this author clearly and explicitly envisions to force others into his preferred systems by encouraging to crippel their enviroment to make their everyday life worse.
This is not exactly the kind of vision I would like to support. I'm all in for positive, productive visions though.
I don't care if you support a particular vision. Calling people bigots, however, is a different thing.
I thought that is just the dismissive term for people that are believed to be destructivly committed to a specific idea.
You are right in implying that it is rude. What would be the socially acceptable term for this phenomenon?
You are right in implying that it is rude. What would be the socially acceptable term for this phenomenon?
It is, not sure why some are getting their panties in a bunch over the term here.
In your mind, are there bad visions and good visions? And you, of course, can tell the difference. You can of course see the destructive ones for what they are! And these bad ideas must be fought and purged before they cause damage. Is that it?
BTW, the author never expressed the wish to force anyone. It was a request.
It's not just the rude term that irks me here. I'm often getting a very fanatic vibe from people who viciously call out sentiments like the author's.
BTW, the author never expressed the wish to force anyone. It was a request.
It's not just the rude term that irks me here. I'm often getting a very fanatic vibe from people who viciously call out sentiments like the author's.
I wrote that there are good and bad visions and that assessment over a visions affiliation differs, yes. And I am pretty sure I can tell the difference.
Finding a position on a vision is something probably everyone can do. Bonus: In certain cases, if it is percieved to be relevant enough, it enables democratic societies to exercise what could be described as a public discourse.
But if it helps you I could claim the fighting/purging thing you tried to put into my mouth. ;)
His reason to not forbid it is because the GPL doesn't allow it. At least that's what I got from his second sentence.
I'm with you on the fanatic vibe people get in discussions on this issue. I think it's a weird effect of something which fundamentally seems to be a good signal: That people really care about the issue. That's ok for me. ..or at least a good start for a better exchange.
Finding a position on a vision is something probably everyone can do. Bonus: In certain cases, if it is percieved to be relevant enough, it enables democratic societies to exercise what could be described as a public discourse.
But if it helps you I could claim the fighting/purging thing you tried to put into my mouth. ;)
His reason to not forbid it is because the GPL doesn't allow it. At least that's what I got from his second sentence.
I'm with you on the fanatic vibe people get in discussions on this issue. I think it's a weird effect of something which fundamentally seems to be a good signal: That people really care about the issue. That's ok for me. ..or at least a good start for a better exchange.
I totally don't get what freeloading has to do with this. Could you please explain?
EDIT: Just saw this is from 2001, so may be a tad bit justified in the MS context. I still stand by the "goes against the community spirit" thing though.
Doesn't this sort of closed-mindedness fly in the face of the spirit of FOSS and community? Plus, today's MS is not the evil empire of yesterday. I'd rather be in bed with them than, say, Oracle. Long time Java hating .NET guy here- so I am probably biased though.
Doesn't this sort of closed-mindedness fly in the face of the spirit of FOSS and community? Plus, today's MS is not the evil empire of yesterday. I'd rather be in bed with them than, say, Oracle. Long time Java hating .NET guy here- so I am probably biased though.
I believe you are mistaken and giving them a too easy pass. They have improved, but not by much:
[1] http://www.infoworld.com/article/2841412/open-source-softwar...
[2] https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/01/i-am-still-not-buying-the...
[3] http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/m...
[1] http://www.infoworld.com/article/2841412/open-source-softwar...
[2] https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/01/i-am-still-not-buying-the...
[3] http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/m...
I agree with this 100%
Microsoft is responsible for destroying creative and better software than it produces itself
If you cannot see the obvious you are part of the problem
[deleted]
What about OS X?
According to the author this is bad. I agree with this point for the purpose of this discussion.
The author tries to limit people's freedoms.
The author tells me I should try to limit people's freedoms.
For the sake of their freedoms.
P.s. I'm not familiar with the author or their software.
P.p.s. Luckily there's less need to port Linux software to Windows these days since Microsoft has partnered with Ubuntu to create a Windows Subsystem for Linux which is capable of running an Ubuntu user space and bash shell directly on Windows.
See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/commandline/wsl/about
and https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/commandline/wsl/install_gui...