Linked by David Adams on Tue 27th Jul 2010 07:35 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Thread beginning with comment 434604
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Shooting yourself in the foot.
by nt_jerkface on Wed 28th Jul 2010 05:43
in reply to "RE[3]: Shooting yourself in the foot."
This is an incorrect assumption on your part. Not every open source application is ported to Windows or let alone MacOS X.
His point is valid in that the best open source applications are ported to Windows so to the typical consumer there is a clear net loss in application compatibility when switching to Linux.
RE[5]: Shooting yourself in the foot.
by vivainio on Wed 28th Jul 2010 18:12
in reply to "RE[4]: Shooting yourself in the foot."
His point is valid in that the best open source applications are ported to Windows so to the typical consumer there is a clear net loss in application compatibility when switching to Linux.
Some applications (e.g. development tools) just can't be ported.
Agreed that for "typical consumer", such applications don't matter. But they matter to developers, which are the most important user segment (as Ballmer agrees).





Member since:
2008-12-26
What I'm saying is that, for all practical purposes, Linux runs a sub-set of the apps available to the OSX and Windows user.
This is an incorrect assumption on your part. Not every open source application is ported to Windows or let alone MacOS X. And if there is a port, it may be "second grade" solution like KDE/Cygwin on Windows, or all the crap on macports/fink/whatever the mac people use these days.
That is not a good place to be when you are all but invisible in OEM system sales. The kit builder - the technical hobbysist - does not drive adoption.
But mobile devices do.