Linked by David Adams on Sun 6th Nov 2011 04:34 UTC
Linux While it may seem like Linux-only projects are betraying their loyal base by developing Windows or OSX versions, I would argue that cross-platform development is actually better for Linux as a whole, better for individual software projects and their developers, and ultimately better for Linux users.
Order by: Score:
Even within the FOSS community...
by ZacharyM on Sun 6th Nov 2011 06:20 UTC
ZacharyM
Member since:
2007-05-28

You can see how this issue applies to software developed for Unix-like operating systems as well. Look at the degradation of functionality under XFCE, etc. on the various BSD variants, with the advent of polkit, etc. XFCE on anything but GNU\Linux has become an afterthought.

Edited 2011-11-06 06:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

demosthenese Member since:
2011-02-01

AIUI the only functionality lost to the BSDs was automounting of external drives. This is because HAL is deprecated - it would be unrealistic to expect the (small) Xfce team to maintain HAL just for backward compatibility.

If automounting cannot be lived without, use 4.6, and hope someone provides a udev implementation on BSD.

Reply Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

If automounting cannot be lived without, use 4.6, and hope someone provides a udev implementation on BSD.


Or use the native BSD automounting solutions (that have been present prior to when HAL became new, default, and deprecated).

Reply Score: 6

Multi OS is the way to go
by shotsman on Sun 6th Nov 2011 06:58 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

I do a lot of dev for stuff that run on servers (currently Slowaris). I do lots of my testing on Linux (CentOS) but some some tools are Windows only.

To name two, Soap/UI & Toad/Oracle

Even my text editor of choice (UltraEdit) now works on Linux and OSX as well as Windows. Wireshark is multiplatform.
The IDE I use is Eclipse and the plugins I use are fully supported on Linux BUT, if I could have the same functionality on Linux, I could ditch Windows entirely.

My work Laptop grinds to a halt every Wednesday morning as the McAfee AV Scanner cripples the machine for 6 hours. I can't get the time it run changed as it is all locked down by a group policy. PAH!

The easier it is to switch platforms the better IMHO.
(not good for MS though)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Multi OS is the way to go
by moondevil on Sun 6th Nov 2011 09:38 UTC in reply to "Multi OS is the way to go"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08


My work Laptop grinds to a halt every Wednesday morning as the McAfee AV Scanner cripples the machine for 6 hours. I can't get the time it run changed as it is all locked down by a group policy. PAH!


As long as you have to use Windows, I would advise against McAfee and Norton garbage. There are better anti-virus outthere that don't kill the PC while working. At least Karpesky works well for me.

Of course if you are forced to use McAfee as company police there is not much you can do about it. If you happen to have admin rights you can shutdown the process just before it is supposed to do a full scan and bring it up afterwards. In some cases this works and the full scan is skipped.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Multi OS is the way to go
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Nov 2011 14:52 UTC in reply to "Multi OS is the way to go"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

SoapUI is 100% Java, thus not Windows only.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Multi OS is the way to go
by shotsman on Sun 6th Nov 2011 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Multi OS is the way to go"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

So where is the Linux version on their Web site?

I'd really like an equivalent tool that is multi-platform. AFAIK, it does not exist.

Reply Score: 1

diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

So where is the Linux version on their Web site?

I'd really like an equivalent tool that is multi-platform. AFAIK, it does not exist.


You should look better. ;)

Direct download link here:

http://ufpr.dl.sourceforge.net/project/soapui/soapui/4.0.1/soapui-4...

If you go to their web site: http://www.soapui.org/ -- You will see there is a Linux installer download link. If you click on that you will be presented with a download link and mirrors for your convenience.

Most Java applications are cross-platform. I have used SoapUI on Linux and it works great. You only need JVM or OpenJDK to run it. Please follow their instructions.

I still prefer to work with REST/JSON/XML however, rather than SOAP.

Regards.

Edited 2011-11-06 22:00 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Comment by Gone fishing
by Gone fishing on Sun 6th Nov 2011 07:51 UTC
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

Good article - and one I largely agree with, my experience suggests that people have little difficulty in changing to Linux, in fact they usually prefer Linux - if they are working with familiar applications.

Mozilla, VNC, Skype, Google World, and the GIMP etc being applications that are found in Windows makes the transition easier.

Giving up MS Office, Nero etc for Open-source equivalents does not.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Gone fishing
by Phil2 on Sun 6th Nov 2011 14:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by Gone fishing"
Phil2 Member since:
2010-05-26

Except GIMP developers don't care for Windows. Some people figured how to compile it for Windows, but such builds are unofficial and unsupported.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Gone fishing
by westlake on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by Gone fishing"
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

Mozilla, VNC, Skype, Google World, and the GIMP etc being applications that are found in Windows makes the transition easier.


It makes the move unecessary.

There are enormous economies of scale at play in Windows.

By the time product reaches retail shelves, the OEM Windows system install is - for all practical purposes - free.

Walmart.com sells a 3.4 GHz i7 desktop wth 16 GB RAM and a 2 TB HDD for $1000.

A beast like this running Win 7 is a damn capable machine at a mass-market price. It will be easy to secure and easy to manage no matter how often the geek pretends otherwise.

23" monitor included.

After-market sales of hardware, software, accessories and services are huge.

There is no dual inventory and support structure to maintain.

This why the geek goes into cardiac arrest when anyone mentions "secure booting."

The only leverage he has to drive adoption of Linux is affordable commodity PC hardware.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing
by unclefester on Mon 7th Nov 2011 06:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Gone fishing"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

The "free' Windows software is an illusion. Every few years the Windows PC owner must buy new hardware to run the latest version. Don't forget the new versions of Office, McAfee, Norton, Nero etc which are also purchased by most users.

My 5yo home built PC still runs Ubuntu 11.04 as well as it ran Ubuntu 6.10 back in 2006. I haven't spent a cent on software and have only replaced a hard drive and PSU (which was over 10 years old). It will probably still easily meet the minimum hardware requirements for Linux for another 10-15 years.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Gone fishing
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

The "free' Windows software is an illusion. Every few years the Windows PC owner must buy new hardware to run the latest version. Don't forget the new versions of Office, McAfee, Norton, Nero etc which are also purchased by most users.

Only one problem with the above... Everything you said is total bullsh*t.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Gone fishing
by Wafflez on Mon 7th Nov 2011 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing"
Wafflez Member since:
2011-06-26

Really? Which Linux distribution is supported for 10 years like Windows XP?

You do realize that one of the reasons while Windows prevailed in business (and thus in homes) is because of the support. And backwards compatability. Backwards compatibily - yeah I'm sure you never heard that, because Linux is a giant mess and stuff goes deprecated even before you can learn it's APIs, lol.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing
by JAlexoid on Mon 7th Nov 2011 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Gone fishing"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

A $1000 machine is a mass-market price? What are you smoking there? It's either premium or overpowered.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Gone fishing
by ggeldenhuys on Sun 6th Nov 2011 21:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by Gone fishing"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

Mozilla, VNC, Skype, Google World, and the GIMP etc being applications that are found in Windows makes the transition easier.

The transatition might be easier, as long as they don't expect the same performance and features. Mozilla crippled under Linux compared to Windows. Skype crippled under Linux compared to Windows etc. etc.

Giving up MS Office, Nero etc for Open-source equivalents does not.

You do know Nero Linux existed for many years so far. I have bought v3 & upgraded to v4 when it came out. It's my CD/DVD writing software of choice under Linux. BUT, it doesn't come close to the functionality of the Windows version! :-(

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Gone fishing
by sgtrock on Mon 7th Nov 2011 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Gone fishing"
sgtrock Member since:
2011-05-13

You're still using Nero? Wow. I gave that up for k3b a long, LONG time ago. Much easier to use app, IMO. Well worth taking a look.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Gone fishing
by diegoviola on Sun 6th Nov 2011 22:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by Gone fishing"
diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

Good article - and one I largely agree with, my experience suggests that people have little difficulty in changing to Linux, in fact they usually prefer Linux - if they are working with familiar applications.

Mozilla, VNC, Skype, Google World, and the GIMP etc being applications that are found in Windows makes the transition easier.

Giving up MS Office, Nero etc for Open-source equivalents does not.


MS Office? I can't recall when was the last time I used that. I'd rather use LibreOffice or Vim+LaTeX any day. Both are very good, and they don't lock me to proprietary formats.

Nero? I think there is a Linux version, I also heard K3b is very good. However, I still prefer USB flash drives rather than optical media.

I find USB flash drives easier to work with and more reliable.

Also, if you really *must* use a Windows application, there is always virtualization as well.

Edited 2011-11-06 22:37 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Gone fishing
by lemur2 on Mon 7th Nov 2011 04:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by Gone fishing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Good article - and one I largely agree with, my experience suggests that people have little difficulty in changing to Linux, in fact they usually prefer Linux - if they are working with familiar applications. Mozilla, VNC, Skype, Google World, and the GIMP etc being applications that are found in Windows makes the transition easier. Giving up MS Office, Nero etc for Open-source equivalents does not.


While MS Office is perhaps a little easier to use than LibreOffice, there isn't much in it.

K3B is at least as good as Nero.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Darkmage
by Darkmage on Sun 6th Nov 2011 09:58 UTC
Darkmage
Member since:
2006-10-20

So I can run everything my Linux runs, but have games and proprietary application support too??? How does this help get me off of Windows again? The real answer is Linux needs better Linux only applications. Like Macintosh, the platform has to kick the crap out of Windows in specific areas to drive adoption. Right now it doesn't so it lags behind in marketshare.

Edited 2011-11-06 09:59 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by Darkmage
by Shadowmane on Sun 6th Nov 2011 12:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by Darkmage"
Shadowmane Member since:
2006-06-16

I'm sorry. I think this whole "marketshare" thing is a farce. There is really no telling how many people are on Linux, because adopters of Linux don't buy it. They simply download it and install it on their computers. This skews the numbers when talking about adopters of Linux.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by Darkmage
by westlake on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Darkmage"
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

I'm sorry. I think this whole "marketshare" thing is a farce. There is really no telling how many people are on Linux, because adopters of Linux don't buy it.


But they will go online.

They will download apps from their distro's repository.

Buy a "Humble Bundle" and you be counted as a Linux gamer.

Why do you think the Mozilla Foundation is a Net Applications client?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Darkmage
by ilovebeer on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Darkmage"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I'm sorry. I think this whole "marketshare" thing is a farce. There is really no telling how many people are on Linux, because adopters of Linux don't buy it. They simply download it and install it on their computers. This skews the numbers when talking about adopters of Linux.

There's no telling how many people use Windows either but it's certainly a bigger number than reflected in sales figures.

I know certain Linux users really really really want to believe their beloved OS is far more popular than it really is, ....but it's not. The reasons can be whined about/debated til the cows come home but it doesn't change the reality.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Darkmage
by Soulbender on Mon 7th Nov 2011 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Darkmage"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This skews the numbers when talking about adopters of Linux.


Sure but not so much that it calls into question Windows status as the mass-market leader.
The question is, does it matter how much market share Linux has?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Darkmage
by ilovebeer on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by Darkmage"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

So I can run everything my Linux runs, but have games and proprietary application support too??? How does this help get me off of Windows again? The real answer is Linux needs better Linux only applications. Like Macintosh, the platform has to kick the crap out of Windows in specific areas to drive adoption. Right now it doesn't so it lags behind in marketshare.

Someone who gets it.. Yes, exactly right and why Linux will continue to not be taken seriously as at least a desktop os by anyone beyond Linux enthusiasts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Darkmage
by unclefester on Mon 7th Nov 2011 06:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Darkmage"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

In a few years the average "desktop" will probably be an (Android) phone or tablet that uses a docking station that provides power, a keyboard, a mouse and monitor. The software will be web based and the storage cloud based.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Darkmage
by Wafflez on Mon 7th Nov 2011 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Darkmage"
Wafflez Member since:
2011-06-26

Because of the ideologistic morons, I agree! Untill they'll chant their "not GPL - not in my pc" mantra, Linux can go fsck itself.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by Darkmage
by Soulbender on Mon 7th Nov 2011 21:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by Darkmage"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Like Macintosh, the platform has to kick the crap out of Windows in specific areas to drive adoption.


It already does although not in areas that matter for the large masses.

Right now it doesn't so it lags behind in marketshare.


It's perfectly possible to be leading in specific areas without being the overall marketshare leader. In fact, that is usually the case.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Darkmage
by reconciliation on Tue 8th Nov 2011 14:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by Darkmage"
reconciliation Member since:
2009-07-02

"So I can run everything my Linux runs, but have games and proprietary application support too??? How does this help get me off of Windows again?"

If you want games and proprietary application support you will use Windows anyway. It helps with adoption because more and more applications you might use (pidgin, gimp, audacity, f.lux, open/libreoffice, vlc, ...) will be known to you if you ever use Linux or try it out. And that will make you feel more comfortable with it.

Obviously they're not a reason to switch. But they take away a big reason not to switch.
What Linux needs imho is more streamlined gui based configuration. For example if you have a 5.1 system and you want to set up a system wide equalizer or delays for your speakers you have to be a guru in writing asoundrc or you can just forget about it. There are some good gui configuration things like wicd but there are a lot of holes because most people eventually get to editing configuration files and nobody is motivated to try to unify the inconsistent mess.
The ability to run games will come soon enough and is already there for many games. (I could play mass effect 2 days after it was released, although I had to patch wine and recompile it for that)

Linux Mint is doing really good work with consistency and taking away little pains and adding little features (like an "upload to ..." context menu item in nautilus or what it was)

Then there is also missing features/applications that make people turn back. Or hard to find applications. You can spend a lot of time to find an application that does what you want if you don't know what it is called. So if you know that application from Windows or Mac already you will more easily feel "at home". So in that sense cross-platform applications do a great service to Linux. They also attract more developers and familiarize them with cross-platform coding.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by zima
by zima on Sun 13th Nov 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by Darkmage"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

So I can run everything my Linux runs, but have games and proprietary application support too??? How does this help get me off of Windows again? The real answer is Linux needs better Linux only applications. Like Macintosh, the platform has to kick the crap out of Windows in specific areas to drive adoption. Right now it doesn't so it lags behind in marketshare.

Well TBH - you're irrelevant. I am, too. When talking about some respectable (not outright dominating, or some other silliness like that; first things first ;p ) market share, it matters only if the thing will be good enough for large enough group of people.

When I look at how the "average user" people around me use PCs - it turns out most of them aren't into Windows games at all (and out of those who aren't, the subgroup playing browser/etc. games seems bigger than "true PC gamers").
Also, while they technically do rely on "proprietary application support" - in large part (I think easily more than half...) it boils down to the browser, IM client, media player, and office suite (in many cases the last is already OOo/Libre Office, my place leads in their adoption as is - but TBH, when I sometimes see how people use Writer or Word (yes, that's also about large part of those who are convinced they "require" MS Office), something between Wordpad and Abiword would be more than enough for them)

They aren't really tied to the OS already (plus most don't use the OS per se, they just want from it to get out of their way) And while, in their cases, even habits could prevent that - there are still ~5 billion people who are not PC users - quite a space to grow among them. Coincidentally, they are the people who would appreciate lower costs the most (when underlying OS won't matter so much, something like not-in-your-way-LXDE might do fine - that's even one of their goals, to target inexpensive ARM-class hardware)

Edited 2011-11-14 00:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Good intent, but inconsitently written
by anda_skoa on Sun 6th Nov 2011 10:38 UTC
anda_skoa
Member since:
2005-07-07

Generally I would agree with there being benefits in doing software development in a portable fashion.

For example I totally agree with shotsman that just having a broader range of tools available already makes it a worthwhile effort.

So in principle I would have expected to agree with the article's contents as well, but I don't.

First, the author is very inconsistent in their definition of Linux-only.
At first one would assume that the meaning is software only available on Linux, but one discoveres pretty quickly that Linux-only seems to mean not available on Windows/OSX.

Closer to the end of the article even this is not true anymore, Linux-only now meaning more or less Windows/OSX versions not being in total sync with Unix platforms.

Very sloppy definition of "only" IMHO.

The author then goes on to claim that having the software available for the two main proprietary desktop platforms would automatically increase project contributions (either as work or financially).

But then totally destroys that argument himself by claiming that he would totally seriously love to contribute to Calligra (as a developer, no less) but cannot because the Windows version is not released consequently enough.
Right!

Most projects have a majority of their developers using one platform.
Some projects might reach out to contributors on other platforms, e.g. by providing an initial port or even doing a release there now and then.
Some projects might not have the resoures to do that but would welcome any new contributors willing to do that.
Only very few projects will consciously avoid supporting platforms they deem to different than their main one and especially on Linux only a tiny fraction will deliberatly depend on a single platform's feautures.

So nice intent of advertising targetting multiple platforms but very inconsistent in execution.

Reply Score: 4

Linux needs killer applications
by moondevil on Sun 6th Nov 2011 18:23 UTC
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

I disagree with the article.

Mostly people don't care about operating systems, they want applications.

If the applications they need are already available on their current platform, why switch?

This was one of the reasons OS/2 died. There were no killer applications and the Windows compatibility layer was good enough that most software houses were using Win16 APIs instead.

Lets take Android as example, if tomorrow Google decides to replace Linux by another kernel, which
is possible since most applications are targeting Dalvik, the majority of customers won't care as long as their applications still work.

It is a bit like the games console. Most gamers buy the consoles to play a specific set of games, not the other way around.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Linux needs killer applications
by Phil2 on Sun 6th Nov 2011 20:31 UTC in reply to "Linux needs killer applications"
Phil2 Member since:
2010-05-26

If the applications they need are already available on their current platform, why switch?


Better security, some might simply like the interface, lots of reasons.

Reply Score: 1

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

What better security?

All major OS are quite secure if you take care to proper administrate them.

Reply Score: 2

Cross-platform software often sucks
by ddc_ on Sun 6th Nov 2011 18:37 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

To date I've seen only two cross-platform projects done right: Transmission and WebKit — they both integrate in respective user environments to the degree when one can't differ them from native applications. Firefox came close but never did the trick on Linux.

The rest of them are ugly either on all their platforms (like OpenOffice.org) or have one platform with adequate degree of integration but fail on others.

It is really difficult to write a really cross-platform app. And an application that runs on every platform but makes You wash Your hands after closing it doesn't help alternative platforms.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bibble Pro works great
by ngaio on Sun 6th Nov 2011 21:45 UTC in reply to "Cross-platform software often sucks"
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

Bibble Pro looks equally excellent on both Linux and Windows. I've never tried the Mac version. It uses the QT framework.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bibble Pro works great
by tuma324 on Sun 6th Nov 2011 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Bibble Pro works great"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

Bibble Pro looks equally excellent on both Linux and Windows. I've never tried the Mac version. It uses the QT framework.


You mean Qt?

QT is QuickTime.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Bibble Pro works great
by ngaio on Mon 7th Nov 2011 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bibble Pro works great"
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

You mean Qt?

QT is QuickTime.


It was crystal clear what I meant. If you want me give you a list of instances of where application developers use the phrase "QT" instead of "Qt" I'll do so, so you can write to them and educate them too. However I suspect they have better things to do with their time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bibble Pro works great
by ddc_ on Mon 7th Nov 2011 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Bibble Pro works great"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

If You talk about http://bibblelabs.com/index.html , then that's exactly what I meant to look ugly on all platforms.

Well, the word ugly might be the wrong word here. It looks alien and it brings its own habbits with it, so it clearly falls out of the user experience on any given platform.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Bibble Pro works great
by ngaio on Mon 7th Nov 2011 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bibble Pro works great"
ngaio Member since:
2005-10-06

It looks alien and it brings its own habbits with it, so it clearly falls out of the user experience on any given platform.


Speaking from the perspective of a photographer, you could not be more wrong in this instance. It meets my expectations of what an interface should look like. There are good reasons why professional photographic workflow applications look similar. Its interface is minimal, dark, and gets out of the way when I want it to. The whole point is that I do not want it to look like other desktop applications, because it meets different needs.

Reply Score: 2

...
by zima on Sun 13th Nov 2011 23:57 UTC in reply to "Cross-platform software often sucks"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

To date I've seen only two cross-platform projects done right: Transmission and WebKit — they both integrate in respective user environments to the degree when one can't differ them from native applications.

Weird choices / there are much better ones... I take it you didn't try Transmission under Windows. And WebKit is more a library (which had to be made cross-platform over the years), hardly worth mentioning here.

Reply Score: 2

Seems simple enough
by jessesmith on Sun 6th Nov 2011 21:30 UTC
jessesmith
Member since:
2010-03-11

This is a no brainer, really, of course apps should be developed multi-platform. Unless you're some zealot who thinks their software needs to remain "pure", there isn't any good reason not to support multiple operating systems.

In the case of Linux apps it's good for the project to go multi-platform (more users) and good for Linux. Most people run programs, not operating systems. Users are much more likely to switch to Linux if they know they can use the same apps as they could on Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Seems simple enough
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 00:07 UTC in reply to "Seems simple enough"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

This is a no brainer, really, of course apps should be developed multi-platform. Unless you're some zealot who thinks their software needs to remain "pure", there isn't any good reason not to support multiple operating systems.
From a developers perspective, I spend more time, energy, and resources to extend my reach to a vastly smaller user base. You call that 'zealot thinking' while the rest of the sane world calls it a poor investment.

In the case of Linux apps it's good for the project to go multi-platform (more users) and good for Linux. Most people run programs, not operating systems. Users are much more likely to switch to Linux if they know they can use the same apps as they could on Windows.
That's not true at all. Users are more likely to switch when their options are removed. This is exactly why Mac dominated the professional audio/video field for so long.

All the main functions of the average Windows pc have a Linux equivalent; office apps, media playback, web, ... Yet you don't see any rush by Windows users to switch.

Another user suggested "better security" as being a good reason to switch, ....as if Linux is automagically more secure than Windows. It is not, and with proper configuration, neither is blatantly more secure than the other.

So how come you don't see droves and droves of people switching to Linux if it's infinitely better? A grand conspiracy against poor little Linux? I think not. Because Linux simply doesn't live up to the Linux fanboy hype? Probably.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Seems simple enough
by jessesmith on Mon 7th Nov 2011 00:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Seems simple enough"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

I was talking about moving in the other direction. That is Linux developers should make their applications run on OS X and Windows. That's not targeting a smaller user base, that's targeting a much much larger user base.

There are other reasons to switch to Linux besides security, although in my experience Linux is much less likely to be infected. Partly because so few people write walmare for Linux. But also package management is vastly better on Linux compared to Windows, driver support is typically better, it takes less resources, better boot times... I find if people are using software that runs on both they see a clear incentive to switch away from Windows.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Seems simple enough
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Seems simple enough"
v RE[4]: Seems simple enough
by lemur2 on Mon 7th Nov 2011 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Seems simple enough"
RE[5]: Seems simple enough
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 05:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Seems simple enough"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Rubbish. Almost every case reported Linux systems have not been "compromised" but rather, simply hacked. Someone has obtained a password.
Contrary to your utopian idea that Linux is somehow magically secure on it's own, an improperly configured and/or administered Linux box is just as insecure as anything else. That is fact whether you like it or not.

In the hands of ordinary users, Windows systems are often compromised simply by the system being on the net. No password guessing required. There is a whole class of activity called "phishing" devoted simply to getting Windows users to visit malicious sites with a view to compromising their Windows systems. Simply by visiting the wrong website.

Windows security is no different than anything else. When properly configured and administered, Windows has low risk of breach. Again, that is fact whether you like it or not.

Sigh! Clearly someone who doesn't know the first thing about Linux package management, and hasn't used it (or, if they have used it that was ages ago, or they are simply lying).

I have been using Debian and various Debian-based distros for many years on a daily basis. Occasionally others, though no where near the same degree. You are a complete fool if you think Linux package management is not without it's problems and/or dependencies aren't a mess. It's not as if I just let some huge cat out of the bag. The problems are well-known and common knowledge. For you to try to deny it is idiotic at best.

Windows "solution" to dependencies is ... every package includes static copies of all the libraries it uses. The size of Windows itself is a dead giveaway ... I made a set of Windows 7 recovery DVDs, it took four DVDs, whereas a Linx installation (with far more functinality out of the box) can be done from a single LiveCD!

Some software packages include static copies, some don't. Neither of which has anything to do with Windows but rather the party that maintains the software package. And whether you package the dependencies directly or your package manager forces you to obtain them externally is of no real difference. Windows is bloated, there's no question. And increasingly more and more Linux distros are becoming that way as well, also no question.

Most of the things I've mentioned Linus Torvalds has complained about himself not to mention users across the various big Linux mailing lists so I don't know who you think you're fooling.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[6]: Seems simple enough
by lemur2 on Mon 7th Nov 2011 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Seems simple enough"
RE[7]: Seems simple enough
by ilovebeer on Tue 8th Nov 2011 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Seems simple enough"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

You, sir, are in denial.

Although the article above doesn't mention it, when they say "PC" or "computer", they actually mean "Windows".

Pasting some random article, written by some random person, and posted on some random website, certainly doesn't prove anything other than you scoured the web until you found anything that sounds like it might support your theory that Linux is magically secure all by itself and configuration/administration aren't even a part of the equation.

The facts actually contradict you.

I am the one who has provided up-to-the-minute-examples, whereas all you have posted is your say-so.

You haven't provided anything at all, including any apparent knowledge or experience on the subject. The fact that you think Linux is magically secure and immune to compromise, and that Windows is the opposite, speaks loud and clear that you have no clue what you're talking about. Not even a little bit.

Reply Score: 2

i was going to disagree
by stabbyjones on Sun 6th Nov 2011 22:14 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

but then i realised that i switched because i was using FOSS on windows for so long that it didn't matter what OS i used.

Reply Score: 2

Do you really need Windows?
by cjosc99 on Sun 6th Nov 2011 22:45 UTC
cjosc99
Member since:
2011-07-13

People use mostly Windows because that was the only thing they saw and learned. Apple use most windows applications without any trouble or better than Windows. Then; why Apple has only five percent of the world's computer market? Now, what is the difference between apple and Linux? yes, exactly; no much. Both OS's come from Unix and Linux can be fixed to be the same or better than Apple and one small or big prove is ANDROID that has more than twice the number of smart phones Apple does. Therefore; if there is a will, Linux can be more useful and resourceful than Windows and Apple. Can somebody explain?!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Do you really need Windows?
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 00:18 UTC in reply to "Do you really need Windows?"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

People use mostly Windows because that was the only thing they saw and learned. Apple use most windows applications without any trouble or better than Windows. Then; why Apple has only five percent of the world's computer market? Now, what is the difference between apple and Linux? yes, exactly; no much. Both OS's come from Unix and Linux can be fixed to be the same or better than Apple and one small or big prove is ANDROID that has more than twice the number of smart phones Apple does. Therefore; if there is a will, Linux can be more useful and resourceful than Windows and Apple. Can somebody explain?!!

Androids success can be attributed to it's availability and lower cost. The OS itself has been less then impressive. Are you unaware of how riddled with holes it is and how easily it's attacked/hacked?

In order to understand the answer to your question, you have to first understand what you're even asking about. You can start with this: Android != IOS != Windows mobile. Linux != OSX != Windows. Mobile OS != desktop OS.

* "!=" means not equal

Edited 2011-11-07 00:19 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by frderi
by frderi on Mon 7th Nov 2011 00:40 UTC
frderi
Member since:
2011-06-17

While it may seem like Linux-only projects are betraying their loyal base


Betraying? WTF? Open Source is all about freedom of choice. Last time I checked, writing open source software didn't require you to marry Linux. Open Source software thats open on other platforms than Linux is not betraying Linux.

Reply Score: 2

Windows no longer relevant
by tuma324 on Mon 7th Nov 2011 01:26 UTC
tuma324
Member since:
2010-04-09

I work developing software for companies out there, I mostly work on Linux, but my coworkers use a mix of Linux and other UNIX-like OS. You couldn't imagine how many companies out there ask their employees not to develop software on Windows.

For example, look at the document below.

http://ompldr.org/vYjV3OQ

I got this document from a former employer. You can clearly see they ask their employees NOT to develop on Windows.

Sure, Windows is still relevant for desktop users, but it's not relevant for the rest of us anymore, and it's unclear how relevant it will be in the future for other people.

Just see the bad critics that Windows 8 is getting with all that tablet GUI for the desktop and the secure boot fiasco. *shrug*

Edited 2011-11-07 01:42 UTC

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Windows no longer relevant
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 03:16 UTC in reply to "Windows no longer relevant"
RE: Windows no longer relevant
by moondevil on Mon 7th Nov 2011 07:15 UTC in reply to "Windows no longer relevant"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I work developing software for companies out there, I mostly work on Linux, but my coworkers use a mix of Linux and other UNIX-like OS. You couldn't imagine how many companies out there ask their employees not to develop software on Windows.

For example, look at the document below.

http://ompldr.org/vYjV3OQ

I got this document from a former employer. You can clearly see they ask their employees NOT to develop on Windows.


Of course it says not to develop on Windows.

From the requirements list you are developing a UNIX server side application, why on earth would you use an OS that is not UNIX based to develop it on?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Windows no longer relevant
by tuma324 on Mon 7th Nov 2011 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows no longer relevant"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

"I work developing software for companies out there, I mostly work on Linux, but my coworkers use a mix of Linux and other UNIX-like OS. You couldn't imagine how many companies out there ask their employees not to develop software on Windows.

For example, look at the document below.

http://ompldr.org/vYjV3OQ

I got this document from a former employer. You can clearly see they ask their employees NOT to develop on Windows.


Of course it says not to develop on Windows.

From the requirements list you are developing a UNIX server side application, why on earth would you use an OS that is not UNIX based to develop it on?
"

My point is there is a trend with this. Just see:

http://jobs.github.com/

I don't see anyone looking for people who knows Windows in there.

Reply Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08


My point is there is a trend with this. Just see:

http://jobs.github.com/

I don't see anyone looking for people who knows Windows in there.


Really?! I was not even aware that github had job advertisements.

Here in Europe I can guarantee you that there are plenty of Windows jobs around.

Most IT Enterprise projects are mostly Java or .Net, with C++ when maximum performance is required or there is the need to meet certain hardware constraints.

Reply Score: 2

Not so good post
by renox on Mon 7th Nov 2011 09:29 UTC
renox
Member since:
2005-07-06

This blog post smells the "work for me free" attitude of many:
- I use XXX it works on Linux but not on Windows, could you work for me free and port it?
- the port of YYY on Windows is not good quality: could you work for me free and make it better?

While having portable application is better in theory, in practice for Linux this is not always the case Songbird is a good example, Firefox is also a good example: quite often it's not as good on Linux as it is on Windows..

Even though the KDE project says it's multiplatform, I think that the number of applications ready on Windows isn't so big, so even if you're not against being portable, it is *hard*..

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Darkmage
by Darkmage on Tue 8th Nov 2011 13:23 UTC
Darkmage
Member since:
2006-10-20

"In a few years the average "desktop" will probably be an (Android) phone or tablet that uses a docking station that provides power, a keyboard, a mouse and monitor. The software will be web based and the storage cloud based." I agree with this for the most part but I don't think the cloud bit is right. That might happen in 20-30 years. but the phone/laptop concept already works. I actually own one of these.. The Motorola Atrix. dualcore 1ghz phone with dedicated nvidia 3d hardware, running ubuntu/android. Docks to a lapdock and the phone drives all the processing/storage on the device. I think this is half the reason why Google bought motorola. They're bringing to market a 14"/10" version that will support all their current/new smart phones. with 2tb SDXC compact flash cards coming in the next 3-10 years that will make phones a viable replacement to desktop/laptop pcs. Android works because it doesn't involve itself in KDE/Gnome, it provides a single unified environment, and you don't touch hardware configuration. Phone on, graphics/wifi/sleep/networking all working. Linux doesn't do that yet. In terms of taking marketshare, Windows phones have always sucked and don't have lock in. You can use exchange on android/iphone. I work in a 30,000 user environment and we have big issues just supporting OSX, Linux is pie in the sky to try to support. We do however successfully support Android phones and tablets. Because they lock down and focus the desktop, however even android has issues with our proxy servers (my atrix handles it perfectly though). I think for linux to take off it really needs to have some WOW factor. Something like OSX, but allow users to choose what window management style they want. Gnome 2 was making good inroads into being a nice desktop for windows users. They lost the plot with 3 though. if nautilus had been more optimised, and linux offered things like a decent multitabbed samba/ftp/dc++ share tool, I might still be on it. I wrote gnome-mplayer to fix the lack of a lightweight feature rich movie GUI for linux. I wrote 3 patches that took that project from dead to exploding with developers. DVB support, Playlist multi file add/remove support, and subtitle/language selection support. At the moment I am using OSX because the video pipelining is second to none. Linux could easily crush OSX with 20 focused developers targetting specific areas/apis but instead it flounders. Where is the Linux iWeb application? not kitchen sink web editor for linux but "I want to make 5 second blog" editor. Where is the GTK based gui for managing all the server daemons/config files? GTK3 supports HTTP transport so a GTK gui automatically becomes a web config gui. This isn't hard stuff, just applying existing technologies correctly. Something Linux has always sucked at.

Reply Score: 1