
Please do not port software to Windows (2001) - LinuxFreedom
http://www.fefe.de/nowindows/
======
JBiserkov
"companies like Microsoft try to limit people's freedoms."

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](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/commandline/wsl/about)

and [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/commandline/wsl/install_gui...](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/commandline/wsl/install_guide)

~~~
zzzcpan
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.

~~~
Kushan
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.

~~~
zzzcpan
No, he doesn't say that if he could he would limit you and that he won't
permit his software to be compatible.

------
more_original
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_von_Leitner)

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fefes_Blog](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fefes_Blog)

~~~
fwn
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/](https://www.ccc.de/en/)

~~~
more_original
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.

------
king_magic
What an amazingly childish attitude. It's hard to have any respect for
extremists like this - and that's exactly what they are. Extremists.

------
sccxy
Don't worry, nobody will.

If you hate people who use windows, then don't be surprised if they do same to
you.

~~~
WayneBro
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.)

------
sbuttgereit
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.

------
bediger4000
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".

~~~
Aldo_MX
> 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?

------
williamstein
Attitudes like this are one of the many reasons why porting complicated OSS
software (like SageMath) to Windows is so hard.

~~~
vedranm
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".

~~~
williamstein
You are right - this is just _one of many_ difficulties...

~~~
vedranm
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.

------
hs86
A couple years later the author was involved in a security audit for Windows
Vista: [https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a81a5919](https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a81a5919)

------
vorotato
He knows I can just open up a linux vm right???

------
Nick2il
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.

------
pjmlp
Sure, then don't complain others don't port their software to your platform of
choice.

------
kodfodrasz
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.

~~~
AnonymousPlanet
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.

~~~
kodfodrasz
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.

~~~
AnonymousPlanet
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.

~~~
kodfodrasz
A gentleman does not argue about taste.

~~~
AnonymousPlanet
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.

~~~
kodfodrasz
> 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.

~~~
AnonymousPlanet
> 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.

------
aashishkoirala
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.

~~~
vedranm
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...](http://www.infoworld.com/article/2841412/open-source-
software/microsoft-attacks-open-source-linux.html)

[2] [https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/01/i-am-still-not-buying-
the...](https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/01/i-am-still-not-buying-the-new-open-
source-friendly-microsoft-bullshit/)

[3] [http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-
tools/m...](http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-
tools/microsoft-loves-open-source-only-when-its-convenient.html)

------
peter_retief
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

------
andai
What about OS X?

