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.
Thread beginning with comment 496237
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Seems simple enough
by jessesmith on Mon 7th Nov 2011 00:34 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Seems simple enough
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 03:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Seems simple enough"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

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.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about things the other way around.

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.

There is far less malware on Linux not because it's more secure, but because it's often not. Linux systems can be extremely easy to compromise as we see time & time again. This is usually credited to poor configuration and administration. What Windows does for you, Linux leaves up to the user. When you have inexperienced users, the holes tend to remain open. And of course Windows being used by millions and millions of people make it a bigger target by default.

I strongly disagree about package management. Linux dependencies are a complete mess more often times than not, which is the result of laziness and poor design.
Disabling optionA doesn't actually remove it and all it's dependencies, it just doesn't present itself as an option to the user. And of course optionA depends on packageB, which depends on packageC, which depends on packageD, E, F, G. This can usually be avoided but that of course requires more effort on the programmers part and I don't know many who bother.

As much as Linux users like to think otherwise, Linux has more in common with Windows than it doesn't. In some ways it's clearly better, in other ways it's clearly worse. The fact that Linus Torvalds himself has ranted about the mess that Linux has become is testament.

Reply Parent Score: -1