Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2012 22:52 UTC
Linux Miguel de Icaza: "To sum up: (a) First dimension: things change too quickly, breaking both open source and proprietary software alike; (b) incompatibility across Linux distributions. This killed the ecosystem for third party developers trying to target Linux on the desktop. You would try once, do your best effort to support the 'top' distro or if you were feeling generous 'the top three' distros. Only to find out that your software no longer worked six months later. Supporting Linux on the desktop became a burden for independent developers." Mac OS X came along to scoop up the Linux defectors.
Permalink for comment 533191
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Doesn't matter what the original claim was, the overall point stands.

There is a lot of business software that only works on Windows or MacOSX properly.

Lets not forget about bespoke software.

"What this kind of user actually uses is a set of applications. And the relevant fact is that there has never existed Linux versions of very popular applications like AutoCAD or Photoshop, to mention just two best sellers. Applications like these are the ones selling Windows machines."

That was the original point which I was arguing, and I don't think it stands the way it was stated. "Applications like AutoCAD and Photoshop" are what sells Windows to *businesses that need them*. Businesses that have very specific requirements for bitmap images, or companies that are designing a product. Programs like these do NOT sell Windows to the masses, which is my whole argument. So no, I don't see how "the point still stands." At least, not as originally said. Maybe the general point stands in certain cases, but those IMO were two of the absolute worst examples that could be given, due to their highly specialized, professional, business-oriented nature. The high prices their respective companies ask for reek of these three qualities.

Reply Parent Score: 3