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.
Thread beginning with comment 533122
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

Perhaps you should consider extending the size of your sample in order to provide a better view of why it is that people use Windows or OSX over Linux on the desktop?

Also extend the scope of application, try Office and iTunes for example. See how things change...

The original claim was about Photoshop and and AutoCAD, so that is what I was arguing about. Nothing more, nothing less--and nothing else. Obviously if you consider Office and iTunes things change, but you made no mention of them in your original post. But that was not the argument; the argument was that such highly specialized, professional pieces of software are NOT why the vast majority of Windows run Windows. Simple as that. I wouldn't consider an office suite to be "highly specialized" or "professional" either really; I learned to use MS Office and other office suites in freaking middle school.

I am not claiming that Windows has no software exclusive to it that helps to propel it above all else. I am just saying that two highly-specialized professional applications don't make much of a dent in the overall mass use of Windows, unless you're a business and need them. Hell, I've even heard claims that even image professionals that use Photoshop would prefer to do it on a Mac. True or not, I don't really give a damn--but the point is, even Photoshop is not exclusive. Not sure about AutoCAD (again, don't care).

Your other two examples are, IMO, better ones--they're something a lot of people use, with Office having a heavy presence on businesses but certainly not exclusive to use by them. iTunes is something more "personal" and unlikely to be on a business machine, but I wouldn't doubt a lot of people--whether they have a business job or not--have it on their personal home machines. On the subject of Windows exclusivity, you sure as hell don't need Windows to run iTunes either--and being an Apple program, it probably purposely runs better on a Mac anyway.

Edited 2012-08-30 04:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

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

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

And the same can be said of Linux. Or did you forget all the internet stuff? Not to mention anywhere there is a cluster involved, or all those Android apps. The street goes both ways.

Reply Parent Score: 2