11–20 of 24 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because most users don't care whether software is open or closed source. They just want software that works.
Amen to that! I wish more developers understood that people don't care about freedom, they just want the stuff they buy to work without major effort. 99.9% of people don't want to setup MythTV, they want a PVR that works
There's not exactly compatibility between versions of Windows, either. Want your XP app to run on Win7? I hope you weren't planning to write to your install directory, since that will require a permissions change on Win7. That XP app is probably 32-bit, too, and if you are on 64-bit Win7 I hope the app isn't looking for "C:\Program Files" to find itself, since it's now in "C:\Program Files (x86)". Why is it still not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amen to that! I wish more developers understood that people don't care about freedom, they just want the stuff they buy to work without major effort. 99.9% of people don't want to setup MythTV, they want a PVR that works
If all OSS developers shared this attitude, there would not be free software today.
And this is kind of true, isn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amen to that! I wish more developers understood that people don't care about freedom, they just want the stuff they buy to work without major effort. 99.9% of people don't want to setup MythTV, they want a PVR that works
If all OSS developers shared this attitude, there would not be free software today.
If OSS wants to become truly mainstream the people creating it need to focus on the experience, not just the code
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amen to that! I wish more developers understood that people don't care about freedom, they just want the stuff they buy to work without major effort. 99.9% of people don't want to setup MythTV, they want a PVR that works
If all OSS developers shared this attitude, there would not be free software today.
In a commercial app there is a requirement to make the installation routine simple because you have to sell the app. With a Linux (and sometimes just generally with FOSS) that drive isn't necessarily there.
It's a general FOSS problem; programs tend to lack that last little bit of polish that would "sell" them - but that is a ball ache to add in.
I think the real reason is there isn't much benefit for making software for linux when the paying userbase for windows or even mac is so much higher. This is why you really only see educational and/or research based software on linux; hopefully if linux starts to get really big we will see this change.
That, and 'EMACS vs. VIM' is a dead horse. Stop beating it.
"no binary compatibility between distributions" That is a feature, because it gives Free software an advantage. Why make it easier for closed source developers?
Because most users don't care whether software is open or closed source. They just want software that works.
Matlab and Mathematica seem to do pretty well at installing universally (though 64bit can cause some issues). I think the real reason is there isn't much benefit for making software for linux when the paying userbase for windows or even mac is so much higher. This is why you really only see educational and/or research based software on linux; hopefully if linux starts to get really big we will see this change.
The numerical simulation and engineering crowd have been using non-Windows systems for a while. These people started by running their programs on mainframes, but as computing got cheaper they started putting those systems under their desks, but they still ran UNIX.
As such, I agree that it's likely just a question of how big the market is and how technical that market is.