On the day that Microsoft releases Windows XP it is hard not to speculate on whether the open source software movement has a realistic chance of gaining a foothold in the desktop market.
In the initial race to compete with Microsoft, too many open source developers tried to replicate the applications on the Windows platform.
Alastair Otter, journalist, ITWeb
There is a growing contingent of commentators who are starting to see the dominance that Microsoft has on the desktop as unbreakable. Most agree, however, that in the server space Linux and other open source projects have the greatest opportunity for growth. Is there space for Linux on the desktop? Yes, but it may require a shift in focus from developers of desktop software.
In the initial race to compete with Microsoft, too many open source developers tried to replicate the applications on the Windows platform. So, for example, the challenge was seen to be to create another Microsoft Word, or an Excel or an Outlook. It is not a race that anyone but Microsoft can win and it is not a productive use of development time.
Recommendations
The open source movement should rather create an architecture built for customisation. A "plug-in" architecture if you will. After all, how much of the functionality in Microsoft Word does the average person use? There are users who only want to write and format letters. There are those that want to produce promotional material with pictures and there are those that produce tables. So what is the point of installing a monolithic ton of code onto an already struggling machine just to be able to type up a letter of resignation? It doesn`t make sense.
What does make sense, and where I would argue the open source movement should be focusing its energies, is on creating the architecture in which users can add and remove capabilities at their own discretion. So the average user will only need to download and install the word processor, word count and spelling checker features. A power user will also need to load the tables and graphics features. In the end, one version of the product may look like a "souped-up" Notepad and another may resemble a DTP package, but in both cases the user gets what they want and nothing more.
A project of this nature also makes sense from a developer point of view. The open source development model survives because of its ability to include the work of thousands of largely volunteer programmers. A 'plug-in` architecture has the potential to include all of these programmers in the pursuit of one goal.
Stability, compatibility
The success of a project such as this rests on a number of factors, the most important of which is ease-of-use. The architecture needs to be stable enough and easy enough for anyone to add and remove features.
The second is compatibility. With an architecture of this nature, users need to be able to plug-in the compatibility formats they require. So, for example, a Microsoft Word viewer or a StarOffice document viewer could be plugged in depending on the user`s environment requirements.
It is not an easy task, but it could be the difference between Linux being forever relegated to the server room and Linux taking its place as a stable desktop alternative.
Share