GnomeMeeting 1.2 released

Thanks :))

Yes, but it progresses slowly...

Christ. Why is there a Windows Port?

I would like to chat with my girlfriend who is bound to Windows and I'am behind NAT. We also need conferencing application in our firm where some collegues uses Windows and all of them are behind NAT. I'am big Gnome fan and watching progress of GnomeMeeting carefully but since there is no windows port I have to use Skype to communicate with all of them. Or is maybe I missed some note about interoperability with other voip open source applications that have windows port. This could convince many more people to give a GM chance on their desktop, couldn't it?

You can use NetMeeting:

Here is a link for:
"How to Activate NetMeeting in Windows XP"
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/networking/learnmore/tips/aljandali1.mspx

I think that's a very good question, but answering it reveals which movement one favors. For free software advocates, porting to a non-free OS is ridiculous because the goal is to spread software freedom, not to give people a means to stay with software that isn't free. Free software OSes become more attractive when unique and compelling free software is made available for them.

For open source advocates, technical efficiency matters and proprietary software is a less efficient means of achieving valuable technical ends, but proprietary software is not beyond the pale. Software freedom is not a concern at all, so catering to users on non-free software OSes is reasonable to do. Popularity means quite a bit, as does convincing the open source movement's chief audience -- business -- of the technical viability of open source software.

J.B. Nicholson-Owens (jbn@forestfield.org)

I disagree with this characterization of "Free Software" vs. "Open Source". It seems to me that these considerations (whether the software will run on non-free platforms or not) are entirely orthogonal to the issue. While most Free Software advocates would prefer not to use proprietary software, the same is generally true for those who advocate Open Source (though their motivations may be different...). If Free Software is written to run on a non-free platform, then the user only has partial software freedom, so this is sub-optimal from the FS advocate's point of view. However, they do have MORE freedom than if they use proprietary apps on the proprietary platform, so it's still an improvement from the FS point of view.

Some Free Software advocates (like RMS) have made a personal choice to not use ANY proprietary software, but that's all it is -- a personal choice. Most of the considerations related to this issue are pragmatic, not ideological.

Neither the FSF nor the GNU project (as far as I know) disapproves of having Free Software available on proprietary platforms, provided they are cross-platform apps. Many of the GNU project's own apps are available cross-platform. Writing FS exclusively for MS-Windows would be bad, because it actively locks people into depending on the proprietary platform. On the other hand, cross-platform apps make it easier for those on Windows/Mac to eventually migrate to a Free operating system, so they are a net-positive for the Free Software movement. That said, developing cross-platform apps requires more time and effort than single-platform apps. If resources are limited, it may be better to use the limited developer resources to make a higher-quality GNU/Linux-based program. The best choice (from a FS perspective) will depend on the specific circumstances (the type of program, and the inclinations of the developers -- you can't force volunteers to work on a Windows port, or refrain from doing so).

I'd say that if GnomeMeeting could fully interoperate with NetMeeting, then there's no point in making it cross-platform. If that's not possible, then a Windows port may be worthwhile since it allows those in mixed environments to standardize on GnomeMeeting for remote conferencing. This makes migration to GnomeMeeting on GNU/Linux a much easier prospect.

Thanks for your response, I think you've raised a good point (essentially, that more software freedom is better than less--a message the FSF's speakers have raised as well, come to think of it). I want to make it clear that I never framed the issue in terms of how RMS or the FSF behaves, nor did I talk about somehow forcing a developer to do something.

I vaguely recall the GNU project not participating in porting GNU programs to (what is now termed) classic MacOS. One was free to do so, of course, but I recall that the FSF folks would not help by merging such code back into their fork of the particular program (the most widely used fork). I think this was a response to the way in which Apple was treating them. If anyone has information on this, I'd like to learn more about it.

I don't think people will switch OSes because their favorite free software programs run on their non-free OS. Quite to the contrary, I think that's a reason for them to not switch to a free software OS. It's easier to do nothing than to do something, and when the free software community is willing to cater to them by porting programs to run on popular non-free systems (chiefly Microsoft Windows), one can wait for the programs to be ported and then enjoy a wide selection of programs.

I've found that people are interested in hearing about software freedom--how it came to be, why it matters, what can happen when one does not have software freedom--when the consequences to them are made clear. I've been successful in getting people to consider an ethical view of computing by playing talks and interviewing people about software freedom.

J.B. Nicholson-Owens (jbn@forestfield.org)

I came across the following article, in which Richard Stallman addresses this particular issue, and I thought it would be of interest to you:

http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html

Here's the relevant excerpt:

FB: Do you think it's a good idea to port a free software project to a proprietary OS such as Windows?

However, we need to be careful to avoid suggesting that the purpose of free applications is to be used on a proprietary system in that way. Using free applications is a step forward, but it doesn't take you all the way to freedom. To reach that destination, we need to avoid the proprietary software that denies users their freedom.

For free software advocates, porting to a non-free OS is ridiculous because the goal is to spread software freedom,
Don't agree, sorry. Freedom means freedom, not freedom unless windows et al.

I don't use windows at all, anyway, but I think that one of the strongest points of free software is that it does not force you to abandon a platform if you really don't want/need to. You may always put a posix/X11 layer on windows and compile any free software around (cygwin, ....)

There shoud be not buts at freedom.

Stop saying nonsense.

Should the program have no Windows port, this would not force you to use it and to use a free platform to be able to use it.
So the point you make is not incompatible with the spread of software freedom. Even if no port is available and the free program is better, you are still able to use the inferior program on a non-free platform.

How about you stop trolling?

Nobody gives a crap if you don't want a windows port. The developers have stated that they are doing a windows port and it was an informative question to know how it is progressing. There was no need to troll with so many messages. One I would understand (if it were worded nicly and not how you posted), but can you please just STFU!!

Now regarding your annoying badgering. There a very good reason to port apps to windows. For the same reason that many GNU apps work on windows (I hope gnu are freedom enough for you) and for the same reason that MANY MANY apps are ported to windows. Because closing your ears and saying 'blah blah freedom blah blah' is idiotic and wont get you anywhere. You have to look at reality and know where to compormise. It is the same reason the LGPL was created.

If gnomemeeting isn't ported to windows, people will not go to linux, instead they will use skype(thats what I do). So what is better?
And now lets repeat:
If gimp isn't ported to windows, people will not go to linux, instead they will use photoshop.
If firefox won't run on windows, people will not go to linux, instead they will use IE.
If openoffice wont run on windows, people will not go to linux, instead they will use MS Office.

and so forth and so on...Get the idea? I'm sure its not that difficult for you to understand. You know, kinda part of the whole 'when does the end justify the means' kind of discussion.

I can't believe I just wasted my time writing that...

Linkage to Windows port?

It is not usable yet, so not public yet. If you want to contribute, feel free to ask on the development mailing list.