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 533191
To view parent comment, click here.
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

lucas_maximus Member since:

No the point still stands.

What you are assuming there is no middle ground between

* Hardcore Power user (developers, photoshop, Autocad, Matlab etc)
* Person that posts of Facebook and can't spell that well.

There are office uses that are in the middle and most Linux software doesn't cater for them.

So while your argument works if you consider only two very extreme cases, it doesn't work if you consider anybody inbetween.

Reply Parent Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:

No--I think you still misunderstand what I've been saying. The argument doesn't work worth the two examples originally given. That was my point. It may work if other programs are given--but I was only arguing about the two specific programs mentioned. Didn't that point get across yet? So yes--with other examples it may be true to varying extents (depending on the applications in question), but for Photoshop and AutoCAD--hell no. You can probably get them both on a Mac anyway. And Office... well, that's on a Mac too. And the reality is, any "normal" people don't even need to pay out their ass for these very specific programs, because there are plenty of office suites, standalone word processors, image editors, etc. that are either free or much cheaper to buy and are geared more toward the masses. They are just some of the more commercially popular examples in their class.

Last time: I was arguing very specifically about PHOTOSHOP and AUTOCAD, the two examples originally given, and then MS OFFICE and ITUNES, the later two examples given. The end.

Edited 2012-08-30 21:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2