Please do not port software to Windows (2001) (opens in new tab)

"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

and https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/commandline/wsl/install_gui...

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

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

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

What about OS X?