Extent of cross-platform development in free applications - Linux

This is a discussion on Extent of cross-platform development in free applications - Linux ; Matt wrote: > Linonut wrote: >> * Matt fired off this tart reply: >> >>> Grant Edwards wrote: >>>> On 2007-12-12, Matt wrote: >>>>> Linonut wrote: >>>>>> It's a matter of ignorance and carelessness, really, that makes >>>>>> people write ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 136

Thread: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

  1. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    Matt wrote:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Matt fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> Grant Edwards wrote:
    >>>> On 2007-12-12, Matt wrote:
    >>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>> It's a matter of ignorance and carelessness, really, that makes
    >>>>>> people write code that is Windows-only.
    >>>>> Well, it is a problem, isn't it? Now I might ask whether and
    >>>>> why people are still writing code that is *nix-only.
    >>>> Because we don't have any need or desire to make it run under
    >>>> Windows.
    >>> I expect that also you have no need or desire for Linux share on the
    >>> desktop to rise above one-half percent.

    >>
    >> Things (along with the cross-posting) that make you go "Hmmmmmmm".

    >
    > Just what made you go "Hmmmmmmm"? Maybe you disagree with the
    > half-percent number? Doesn't matter whether its a half-percent or
    > three. Please explain.


    So a *six-times* difference in numbes "does not matter". Figures

    < snip >

    > I'm sure being a COLA regular has been hard on your emotions, but I ask
    > you to have some respect for what I've written---and to think.


    Why should he have "some respect"? It is earned. Or not
    --
    Tact, n.:
    The unsaid part of what you're thinking.


  2. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Matt wrote:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> * Matt fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> Grant Edwards wrote:
    >>>>> On 2007-12-12, Matt wrote:
    >>>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>>> It's a matter of ignorance and carelessness, really, that makes
    >>>>>>> people write code that is Windows-only.
    >>>>>> Well, it is a problem, isn't it? Now I might ask whether and
    >>>>>> why people are still writing code that is *nix-only.
    >>>>> Because we don't have any need or desire to make it run under
    >>>>> Windows.
    >>>> I expect that also you have no need or desire for Linux share on the
    >>>> desktop to rise above one-half percent.
    >>> Things (along with the cross-posting) that make you go "Hmmmmmmm".

    >> That kind of FUD makes you look cheap.

    >
    > Actually, no, it does not


    It makes him look cheap to me.

    > It expresses his suspicions. Has nothing to do with "FUD"


    His suspicions are wrong.

  3. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Matt wrote:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> * Matt fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> Grant Edwards wrote:
    >>>>> On 2007-12-12, Matt wrote:
    >>>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>>> It's a matter of ignorance and carelessness, really, that makes
    >>>>>>> people write code that is Windows-only.
    >>>>>> Well, it is a problem, isn't it? Now I might ask whether and
    >>>>>> why people are still writing code that is *nix-only.
    >>>>> Because we don't have any need or desire to make it run under
    >>>>> Windows.
    >>>> I expect that also you have no need or desire for Linux share on the
    >>>> desktop to rise above one-half percent.
    >>> Things (along with the cross-posting) that make you go "Hmmmmmmm".

    >> Just what made you go "Hmmmmmmm"? Maybe you disagree with the
    >> half-percent number? Doesn't matter whether its a half-percent or
    >> three. Please explain.

    >
    > So a *six-times* difference in numbes "does not matter". Figures


    I am cross-posting again to the apps group.

    Scenario assuming Linux share never goes above three percent:

    In this case there are no economies of scale for small-niche softwares,
    so they will not be well developed, and Linux users will have to do
    without. Note that this case includes the subcase wherein Linux share
    never goes above a half percent. In the three-percent case, more apps
    will be available than in the half-percent case, but a Linux-only user
    will remain forever limited in his choice of software. Then a Windows
    user has a potential advantage that becomes real when he needs
    special-purpose software.

    So you see it doesn't matter much to the omnivorous software consumer,
    whether Linux peaks at three percent or a half-percent, he just wouldn't
    be satisfied with his software choice.

    The above scenario is not going to happen though. Here is what will
    happen: Large-scale desktop adoption by governments and schools, then
    by large companies (all using cross-platform apps) will lead to use of
    the same apps at home and in small companies. The OS will become less
    relevant to the home user so that the home user will switch to the free,
    open, secure alternative. Once Linux share exceeds some level, say 10%
    to 20%, nearly all apps will be built cross-platform, and very few
    people will be tied to Windows anymore. Linux share goes above ten
    percent within ten years, and above one-half within fifteen years.

    Increased use of web-based apps breaks Windows lockin in the same way as
    cross-platform development.

  4. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Matt wrote:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> * Matt fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> Grant Edwards wrote:
    >>>>> On 2007-12-12, Matt wrote:
    >>>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>>> It's a matter of ignorance and carelessness, really, that makes
    >>>>>>> people write code that is Windows-only.
    >>>>>> Well, it is a problem, isn't it? Now I might ask whether and
    >>>>>> why people are still writing code that is *nix-only.
    >>>>> Because we don't have any need or desire to make it run under
    >>>>> Windows.
    >>>> I expect that also you have no need or desire for Linux share on the
    >>>> desktop to rise above one-half percent.
    >>> Things (along with the cross-posting) that make you go "Hmmmmmmm".

    >> Just what made you go "Hmmmmmmm"? Maybe you disagree with the
    >> half-percent number? Doesn't matter whether its a half-percent or
    >> three. Please explain.

    >
    > So a *six-times* difference in numbes "does not matter". Figures


    I am cross-posting again to the apps group.

    Scenario assuming Linux share never goes above three percent:

    In this case there are no economies of scale for small-niche softwares,
    so they will not be well developed, and Linux users will have to do
    without. Note that this case includes the subcase wherein Linux share
    never goes above a half percent. In the three-percent case, more apps
    will be available than in the half-percent case, but a Linux-only user
    will remain forever limited in his choice of software. Then a Windows
    user has a potential advantage that becomes real when he needs
    special-purpose software.

    So you see it doesn't matter much to the omnivorous software consumer,
    whether Linux peaks at three percent or a half-percent, he just wouldn't
    be satisfied with his software choice.

    The above scenario is not going to happen though. Here is what will
    happen: Large-scale desktop adoption by governments and schools, then
    by large companies (all using cross-platform apps) will lead to use of
    the same apps at home and in small companies. The OS will become less
    relevant to the home user so that the home user will switch to the free,
    open, secure alternative. Once Linux share exceeds some level, say 10%
    to 20%, nearly all apps will be built cross-platform, and very few
    people will be tied to Windows anymore. Linux share goes above ten
    percent within ten years, and above one-half within fifteen years.

    Increased use of web-based apps breaks Windows lockin in the same way as
    cross-platform development.

  5. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    Matt wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >> Matt wrote:
    >>
    >>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>> * Matt fired off this tart reply:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Grant Edwards wrote:
    >>>>>> On 2007-12-12, Matt wrote:
    >>>>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>>>> It's a matter of ignorance and carelessness, really, that makes
    >>>>>>>> people write code that is Windows-only.
    >>>>>>> Well, it is a problem, isn't it? Now I might ask whether and
    >>>>>>> why people are still writing code that is *nix-only.
    >>>>>> Because we don't have any need or desire to make it run under
    >>>>>> Windows.
    >>>>> I expect that also you have no need or desire for Linux share on the
    >>>>> desktop to rise above one-half percent.
    >>>> Things (along with the cross-posting) that make you go "Hmmmmmmm".
    >>> That kind of FUD makes you look cheap.

    >>
    >> Actually, no, it does not

    >
    > It makes him look cheap to me.


    Fine. You don't count. Not a tiny little bit

    >> It expresses his suspicions. Has nothing to do with "FUD"

    >
    > His suspicions are wrong.


    Says who? Your assertions are meaningless
    --
    It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
    'Where am I allowed to go today?'


  6. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    * Matt fired off this tart reply:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >> Crossposting snipped to illustrate how this troll (and maybe Matt, the
    >> original poster, although he may have innocently cross-posted)
    >> deliberately insults not only the uses of Linux, but any open-source
    >> project.

    >
    > In what way did I "maybe" deliberately insult the uses of Linux or any
    > open-source project? It doesn't make sense.


    Your "rephrase" doesn't make sense. My original description of my
    doubts about your motives does make sense.

    --
    Tux rox!

  7. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    * Matt fired off this tart reply:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Matt fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> Grant Edwards wrote:
    >>>> On 2007-12-12, Matt wrote:
    >>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>> It's a matter of ignorance and carelessness, really, that makes people
    >>>>>> write code that is Windows-only.
    >>>>> Well, it is a problem, isn't it? Now I might ask whether and
    >>>>> why people are still writing code that is *nix-only.
    >>>> Because we don't have any need or desire to make it run under
    >>>> Windows.
    >>> I expect that also you have no need or desire for Linux share on the
    >>> desktop to rise above one-half percent.

    >>
    >> Things (along with the cross-posting) that make you go "Hmmmmmmm".

    >
    > Just what made you go "Hmmmmmmm"? Maybe you disagree with the
    > half-percent number? Doesn't matter whether its a half-percent or
    > three. Please explain.
    >
    > As for cross-posting, it is a designed-in feature of Usenet and
    > news-posting programs, and it is there for a reason. Further, I believe
    > my use of it was appropriate. Please explain if you still believe
    > otherwise.
    >
    > I'm sure being a COLA regular has been hard on your emotions, but I ask
    > you to have some respect for what I've written---and to think.


    Here we go again on this merry-go-round.

    --
    Tux rox!

  8. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    Linonut wrote:
    > * Matt fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> * Matt fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> Grant Edwards wrote:
    >>>>> On 2007-12-12, Matt wrote:
    >>>>>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>>>> It's a matter of ignorance and carelessness, really, that makes people
    >>>>>>> write code that is Windows-only.
    >>>>>> Well, it is a problem, isn't it? Now I might ask whether and
    >>>>>> why people are still writing code that is *nix-only.
    >>>>> Because we don't have any need or desire to make it run under
    >>>>> Windows.
    >>>> I expect that also you have no need or desire for Linux share on the
    >>>> desktop to rise above one-half percent.
    >>> Things (along with the cross-posting) that make you go "Hmmmmmmm".

    >> Just what made you go "Hmmmmmmm"? Maybe you disagree with the
    >> half-percent number? Doesn't matter whether its a half-percent or
    >> three. Please explain.
    >>
    >> As for cross-posting, it is a designed-in feature of Usenet and
    >> news-posting programs, and it is there for a reason. Further, I believe
    >> my use of it was appropriate. Please explain if you still believe
    >> otherwise.
    >>
    >> I'm sure being a COLA regular has been hard on your emotions, but I ask
    >> you to have some respect for what I've written---and to think.

    >
    > Here we go again on this merry-go-round.
    >


    Yeah. As for cross-posting, it is a designed-in feature of Usenet and
    news-posting programs, and it is there for a reason. Further, I believe
    my use of it was appropriate. Please explain if you still believe
    otherwise.

  9. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    * Matt fired off this tart reply:

    > Scenario assuming Linux share never goes above three percent:
    >
    > In this case there are no economies of scale for small-niche softwares,
    > so they will not be well developed, and Linux users will have to do
    > without. Note that this case includes the subcase wherein Linux share
    > never goes above a half percent. In the three-percent case, more apps
    > will be available than in the half-percent case, but a Linux-only user
    > will remain forever limited in his choice of software.


    You are doing to much averaging. For example, in technical areas, such
    as web servers and compilers, there are a /lot/ of users, and these
    Linux users have almost an embarrassment of riches.

    Desktop? Different story. But even there, the common stuff is there.
    Small niche? You are correct.

    > Then a Windows user has a potential advantage that becomes real when
    > he needs special-purpose software.


    Sure.

    > The above scenario is not going to happen though. Here is what will
    > happen: Large-scale desktop adoption by governments and schools, then
    > by large companies (all using cross-platform apps) will lead to use of
    > the same apps at home and in small companies. The OS will become less
    > relevant to the home user so that the home user will switch to the free,
    > open, secure alternative. Once Linux share exceeds some level, say 10%
    > to 20%, nearly all apps will be built cross-platform, and very few
    > people will be tied to Windows anymore. Linux share goes above ten
    > percent within ten years, and above one-half within fifteen years.
    >
    > Increased use of web-based apps breaks Windows lockin in the same way as
    > cross-platform development.


    Okay, Matt. I agree. And right now I don't believe you are trolling.
    (If you even cared what I thought ).

    --
    Tux rox!

  10. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    * Matt fired off this tart reply:

    > Scenario assuming Linux share never goes above three percent:
    >
    > In this case there are no economies of scale for small-niche softwares,
    > so they will not be well developed, and Linux users will have to do
    > without. Note that this case includes the subcase wherein Linux share
    > never goes above a half percent. In the three-percent case, more apps
    > will be available than in the half-percent case, but a Linux-only user
    > will remain forever limited in his choice of software.


    You are doing to much averaging. For example, in technical areas, such
    as web servers and compilers, there are a /lot/ of users, and these
    Linux users have almost an embarrassment of riches.

    Desktop? Different story. But even there, the common stuff is there.
    Small niche? You are correct.

    > Then a Windows user has a potential advantage that becomes real when
    > he needs special-purpose software.


    Sure.

    > The above scenario is not going to happen though. Here is what will
    > happen: Large-scale desktop adoption by governments and schools, then
    > by large companies (all using cross-platform apps) will lead to use of
    > the same apps at home and in small companies. The OS will become less
    > relevant to the home user so that the home user will switch to the free,
    > open, secure alternative. Once Linux share exceeds some level, say 10%
    > to 20%, nearly all apps will be built cross-platform, and very few
    > people will be tied to Windows anymore. Linux share goes above ten
    > percent within ten years, and above one-half within fifteen years.
    >
    > Increased use of web-based apps breaks Windows lockin in the same way as
    > cross-platform development.


    Okay, Matt. I agree. And right now I don't believe you are trolling.
    (If you even cared what I thought ).

    --
    Tux rox!

  11. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    Linonut wrote:

    > Desktop?


    Yes, cross-platform development of free desktop applications.

  12. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    Linonut wrote:

    > Desktop?


    Yes, cross-platform development of free desktop applications.

  13. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    > Gimp. That rings a bell. Tried to download Gimp for Windows as a
    > "free" alternative to Paintshop


    There is a variant of gimp called gimpshop. You may want to look at that.

    Mark.

    --
    Mark Hobley
    393 Quinton Road West
    QUINTON
    Birmingham
    B32 1QE

    Email: markhobley at hotpop dot donottypethisbit com

    http://markhobley.yi.org/


  14. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    On 2007-12-14, Mark Hobley wrote:
    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >>
    >> Gimp. That rings a bell. Tried to download Gimp for Windows as a
    >> "free" alternative to Paintshop

    >
    > There is a variant of gimp called gimpshop. You may want to look at that.
    >
    > Mark.
    >


    What's wrong with plain old gimp? works well for me - especially the
    newest. it doesn't take 5 minutes to startup looking for fonts anymore


    --
    Tom Shelton

  15. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    On 2007-12-14, Tom Shelton wrote:
    > On 2007-12-14, Mark Hobley wrote:
    >> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Gimp. That rings a bell. Tried to download Gimp for Windows as a
    >>> "free" alternative to Paintshop

    >>
    >> There is a variant of gimp called gimpshop. You may want to look at that.
    >>
    >> Mark.
    >>

    >
    > What's wrong with plain old gimp? works well for me - especially the
    > newest. it doesn't take 5 minutes to startup looking for fonts anymore
    >
    >


    Now I see... I like it. That's my one big complaint about Gimp, it's UI
    sucks. I mean really - even if your going to make the stupid thing
    multiple windows, couldn't you at least make it so the toolbars stay on
    top of the photo? There is nothing more anoying than maximizing an
    image, and having all the tools move behind it!


    --
    Tom Shelton

  16. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    Matt writes:
    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> Desktop?

    >
    > Yes, cross-platform development of free desktop applications.




    This deserves to be mentioned every once in a while. More ISV support
    is generally considered to help OS vendors to sell their
    products. Consequently, developing applications to run on Windows
    makes the OS product of Microsoft more attractive for users, to whom
    the OS is already irrelevant, because users care about applications to
    put computers to productive uses. Exactly because the OS is
    irrelevant, provided the required applications are there, there is no
    reason to switch to another OS providing the same applications.

    Developing applications which can run on Windows means a greater
    potential market share for those applications, because most desktop/
    laptop PCs run Windows. Insofar these are free applications (for
    Windows, this means 'free beer' and 'Huh ?!?', because a typical
    Windows user would rather have cut himself in half than doing anything
    involving more own thought than installing, re-installing and
    de-installing binary blobs advertised to certainly provide some great
    functionality), this is being nice to Windows users, which are not
    forced to endure the more negative consequences of their platform
    choice, and nothing more.

    There is nothing wrong with increasing the potential market share of
    an application or being nice to Windows users, but these two things
    should not be piggy-backed onto 'helping Linux' (whatever that is
    precisely supposed to mean) or any kind of 'helping software freedom'.

  17. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    Matt writes:
    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> Desktop?

    >
    > Yes, cross-platform development of free desktop applications.




    This deserves to be mentioned every once in a while. More ISV support
    is generally considered to help OS vendors to sell their
    products. Consequently, developing applications to run on Windows
    makes the OS product of Microsoft more attractive for users, to whom
    the OS is already irrelevant, because users care about applications to
    put computers to productive uses. Exactly because the OS is
    irrelevant, provided the required applications are there, there is no
    reason to switch to another OS providing the same applications.

    Developing applications which can run on Windows means a greater
    potential market share for those applications, because most desktop/
    laptop PCs run Windows. Insofar these are free applications (for
    Windows, this means 'free beer' and 'Huh ?!?', because a typical
    Windows user would rather have cut himself in half than doing anything
    involving more own thought than installing, re-installing and
    de-installing binary blobs advertised to certainly provide some great
    functionality), this is being nice to Windows users, which are not
    forced to endure the more negative consequences of their platform
    choice, and nothing more.

    There is nothing wrong with increasing the potential market share of
    an application or being nice to Windows users, but these two things
    should not be piggy-backed onto 'helping Linux' (whatever that is
    precisely supposed to mean) or any kind of 'helping software freedom'.

  18. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    On 2007-12-14, Linonut wrote:
    > * Tom Shelton fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> On 2007-12-14, Mark Hobley wrote:
    >>> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Gimp. That rings a bell. Tried to download Gimp for Windows as a
    >>>> "free" alternative to Paintshop
    >>>
    >>> There is a variant of gimp called gimpshop. You may want to look at that.

    >>
    >> What's wrong with plain old gimp? works well for me - especially the
    >> newest. it doesn't take 5 minutes to startup looking for fonts anymore

    >
    > When did it ever do that (on Windows)?
    >


    The last version - and by the way, 5 minutes was an exageration, it was
    more like 1.5 minutes.... The new version (I can't remember version numbers)
    only does it the first time - seems to cache the information now. It
    starts really quick...

    --
    Tom Shelton

  19. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    * Rainer Weikusat fired off this tart reply:

    > Matt writes:
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> Desktop?

    >>
    >> Yes, cross-platform development of free desktop applications.

    >
    >


    Kind hint:

    In the future, do not include the "URL:". It is non-standard,
    and it also prevents one from simply double-clicking on the link to
    paste it into a browser.

    > There is nothing wrong with increasing the potential market share of
    > an application or being nice to Windows users, but these two things
    > should not be piggy-backed onto 'helping Linux' (whatever that is
    > precisely supposed to mean) or any kind of 'helping software freedom'.


    I'm of two minds. While I don't like Windows, I would like Windows
    users to be able to avail themselves of Free software. There are more
    companies than just Microsoft from which it is desirable to cut oneself
    loose.

    Microsoft is merely the most pernicious of those companies.

    --
    Tux rox!

  20. Re: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

    * Rainer Weikusat fired off this tart reply:

    > Matt writes:
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> Desktop?

    >>
    >> Yes, cross-platform development of free desktop applications.

    >
    >


    Kind hint:

    In the future, do not include the "URL:". It is non-standard,
    and it also prevents one from simply double-clicking on the link to
    paste it into a browser.

    > There is nothing wrong with increasing the potential market share of
    > an application or being nice to Windows users, but these two things
    > should not be piggy-backed onto 'helping Linux' (whatever that is
    > precisely supposed to mean) or any kind of 'helping software freedom'.


    I'm of two minds. While I don't like Windows, I would like Windows
    users to be able to avail themselves of Free software. There are more
    companies than just Microsoft from which it is desirable to cut oneself
    loose.

    Microsoft is merely the most pernicious of those companies.

    --
    Tux rox!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast