Extent of cross-platform development in free applications - Linux

This is a discussion on Extent of cross-platform development in free applications - Linux ; Rainer Weikusat wrote: > Matt writes: >> Linonut wrote: >> >>> Desktop? >> Yes, cross-platform development of free desktop applications. > > sick > This deserves to be mentioned every once in a while. More ISV support > is generally ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 121 to 136 of 136

Thread: Extent of cross-platform development in free applications

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

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

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

    >
    >


    sick

    > 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,


    Does anybody believe that Linux would be better off and Windows would be
    worse off if Open Office ran only on Linux, Unix, and BSD?

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

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

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

    >
    >


    sick

    > 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,


    Does anybody believe that Linux would be better off and Windows would be
    worse off if Open Office ran only on Linux, Unix, and BSD?

  3. 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:
    >>>
    >>>> You have ignored my proof above that software production has economies
    >>>> of scale. The proof could hardly be simpler. The condition is that the
    >>>> average cost (including all development costs) per copy decreases as the
    >>>> number of copies increases.
    >>> Except when cost is equal to or less than zero. The latter relationship
    >>> (cost < 0) is common in the open-source world .

    >> Nonsense. Show me where that exception is stated in the Wikipedia page
    >> that defines economies of scale.

    >
    > It is simple math, Matt.


    Oh, sorry, you're right that the average cost increases when cost<0 and
    the number of copies increases. The concept of negative cost is IMO so
    far from the context that I sorta lost my head.

    >
    >> And what is "cost < 0" supposed to mean anyway?

    >
    > You don't know?!! Coding for love and for learning.
    >
    > Or do you only know coders who code only according to how many boxes it
    > will sell?


    I don't know whether economists have found a way to measure love. Not
    clear what you mean by "coding for love". Maybe you could give an
    example with reference to negative cost.

    Of course we have all written programs for learning, but in those cases
    we don't expect to make more than one copy, and the concept of economies
    of scale does not apply.

  4. 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:
    >>>
    >>>> You have ignored my proof above that software production has economies
    >>>> of scale. The proof could hardly be simpler. The condition is that the
    >>>> average cost (including all development costs) per copy decreases as the
    >>>> number of copies increases.
    >>> Except when cost is equal to or less than zero. The latter relationship
    >>> (cost < 0) is common in the open-source world .

    >> Nonsense. Show me where that exception is stated in the Wikipedia page
    >> that defines economies of scale.

    >
    > It is simple math, Matt.


    Oh, sorry, you're right that the average cost increases when cost<0 and
    the number of copies increases. The concept of negative cost is IMO so
    far from the context that I sorta lost my head.

    >
    >> And what is "cost < 0" supposed to mean anyway?

    >
    > You don't know?!! Coding for love and for learning.
    >
    > Or do you only know coders who code only according to how many boxes it
    > will sell?


    I don't know whether economists have found a way to measure love. Not
    clear what you mean by "coding for love". Maybe you could give an
    example with reference to negative cost.

    Of course we have all written programs for learning, but in those cases
    we don't expect to make more than one copy, and the concept of economies
    of scale does not apply.

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

    * Matt fired off this tart reply:

    > Oh, sorry, you're right that the average cost increases when cost<0 and
    > the number of copies increases. The concept of negative cost is IMO so
    > far from the context that I sorta lost my head.
    >
    > I don't know whether economists have found a way to measure love. Not
    > clear what you mean by "coding for love". Maybe you could give an
    > example with reference to negative cost.
    >
    > Of course we have all written programs for learning, but in those cases
    > we don't expect to make more than one copy, and the concept of economies
    > of scale does not apply.


    Idiot.

    --
    The increasing percentage of Vista isn't growth -- it's molting.

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

    * Matt fired off this tart reply:

    > Oh, sorry, you're right that the average cost increases when cost<0 and
    > the number of copies increases. The concept of negative cost is IMO so
    > far from the context that I sorta lost my head.
    >
    > I don't know whether economists have found a way to measure love. Not
    > clear what you mean by "coding for love". Maybe you could give an
    > example with reference to negative cost.
    >
    > Of course we have all written programs for learning, but in those cases
    > we don't expect to make more than one copy, and the concept of economies
    > of scale does not apply.


    Idiot.

    --
    The increasing percentage of Vista isn't growth -- it's molting.

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

    Matt writes:
    > Linonut wrote:


    [...]

    >> You don't know?!! Coding for love and for learning.
    >> Or do you only know coders who code only according to how many boxes
    >> it
    >> will sell?

    >
    > I don't know whether economists have found a way to measure love.
    > Not clear what you mean by "coding for love". Maybe you could give
    > an example with reference to negative cost.


    Simple: Enjoying to write code. This would mean no cost, but a gain.
    Actually, it can be both: I have to write code, because this is my
    job, so, it is a cost. OTOH, it's my life to write code and I actually
    feel pretty useless if I don't.

    No, economists have not found a way to measure that. Mainly, because
    they tend to measure measurable things, if only the sake of acting
    sanely and trying to achieve something which they expect to be a
    direct, productive result from what they do, instead of an indirect
    one reached by pretending.

    > Of course we have all written programs for learning, but in those
    > cases we don't expect to make more than one copy, and the concept of
    > economies of scale does not apply.


    Creating more copies of an existing program is still free.

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

    Matt writes:
    > Linonut wrote:


    [...]

    >> You don't know?!! Coding for love and for learning.
    >> Or do you only know coders who code only according to how many boxes
    >> it
    >> will sell?

    >
    > I don't know whether economists have found a way to measure love.
    > Not clear what you mean by "coding for love". Maybe you could give
    > an example with reference to negative cost.


    Simple: Enjoying to write code. This would mean no cost, but a gain.
    Actually, it can be both: I have to write code, because this is my
    job, so, it is a cost. OTOH, it's my life to write code and I actually
    feel pretty useless if I don't.

    No, economists have not found a way to measure that. Mainly, because
    they tend to measure measurable things, if only the sake of acting
    sanely and trying to achieve something which they expect to be a
    direct, productive result from what they do, instead of an indirect
    one reached by pretending.

    > Of course we have all written programs for learning, but in those
    > cases we don't expect to make more than one copy, and the concept of
    > economies of scale does not apply.


    Creating more copies of an existing program is still free.

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

    Rainer Weikusat wrote:

    > Creating more copies of an existing program is still free.


    Where 'free' means having no effect or negligible effect on the total
    cost?

    And where the average cost is the total cost divided by the number of
    copies?

    I believe we might reach agreement if you would try to answer yes or no
    to these questions.

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

    Rainer Weikusat wrote:

    > Creating more copies of an existing program is still free.


    Where 'free' means having no effect or negligible effect on the total
    cost?

    And where the average cost is the total cost divided by the number of
    copies?

    I believe we might reach agreement if you would try to answer yes or no
    to these questions.

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

    On 12 Dez. 2007, 09:01, Matt wrote:

    > I am talking about part of a five or ten or twenty year program to break
    > Microsoft's (for that matter anyone's) general stranglehold on software


    You don't need Apps, you need a different mind set of the OSS guys.
    Reducing freedom for some to get a better environment for many.

    Binary compatibility at all cost, even in the kernel device driver.

    This will not happen and therefore Linux/BSD (except MacOSX) will
    never
    break MS.


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

    On 12 Dez. 2007, 09:01, Matt wrote:

    > I am talking about part of a five or ten or twenty year program to break
    > Microsoft's (for that matter anyone's) general stranglehold on software


    You don't need Apps, you need a different mind set of the OSS guys.
    Reducing freedom for some to get a better environment for many.

    Binary compatibility at all cost, even in the kernel device driver.

    This will not happen and therefore Linux/BSD (except MacOSX) will
    never
    break MS.


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

    llothar writes:
    > On 12 Dez. 2007, 09:01, Matt wrote:
    >> I am talking about part of a five or ten or twenty year program to break
    >> Microsoft's (for that matter anyone's) general stranglehold on software

    >
    > You don't need Apps, you need a different mind set of the OSS guys.
    > Reducing freedom for some to get a better environment for many.


    That's an assertion. There is no reason provided why it would be true.

    > Binary compatibility at all cost, even in the kernel device driver.


    That's another assertion. Again, without reason. And a couple of
    real-world counterexamples and other 'opposing viewpoints' immediatly
    spring to mind:

    - MS does not provide 'guaranteed binary compatibility'. Yet,
    they are successful.

    - Sun provides 'guaranteed binary compatbility' back towards
    the first versions of SunOS. Yet Solaris has less 'desktop
    marketshare' than Linux-based systems have.

    A common-sense argument against it would be that 'doing something at
    all costs' isn't sensible. In the real world, everything ends up being
    a trade-off.

    An additional train-of-thoughts: There are exactly two methods to
    provide 'guaranteed binary compatibility':

    - immediatly stop all development, including bug fixes

    - create an externally maintained set of 'glue modules' which
    serve as mediator between whatever the current 'state of the
    world' happens to be and some 'never changing interface'

    Obviously, the people interested in 'guaranteed binary compatiblitly'
    are not interested in doing anything to solve their problem
    themselves, ruling out option two. Option one means litte more than
    'in order to suceed, Linux MUST DIE NOW'. And that's nonsense.


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

    llothar writes:
    > On 12 Dez. 2007, 09:01, Matt wrote:
    >> I am talking about part of a five or ten or twenty year program to break
    >> Microsoft's (for that matter anyone's) general stranglehold on software

    >
    > You don't need Apps, you need a different mind set of the OSS guys.
    > Reducing freedom for some to get a better environment for many.


    That's an assertion. There is no reason provided why it would be true.

    > Binary compatibility at all cost, even in the kernel device driver.


    That's another assertion. Again, without reason. And a couple of
    real-world counterexamples and other 'opposing viewpoints' immediatly
    spring to mind:

    - MS does not provide 'guaranteed binary compatibility'. Yet,
    they are successful.

    - Sun provides 'guaranteed binary compatbility' back towards
    the first versions of SunOS. Yet Solaris has less 'desktop
    marketshare' than Linux-based systems have.

    A common-sense argument against it would be that 'doing something at
    all costs' isn't sensible. In the real world, everything ends up being
    a trade-off.

    An additional train-of-thoughts: There are exactly two methods to
    provide 'guaranteed binary compatibility':

    - immediatly stop all development, including bug fixes

    - create an externally maintained set of 'glue modules' which
    serve as mediator between whatever the current 'state of the
    world' happens to be and some 'never changing interface'

    Obviously, the people interested in 'guaranteed binary compatiblitly'
    are not interested in doing anything to solve their problem
    themselves, ruling out option two. Option one means litte more than
    'in order to suceed, Linux MUST DIE NOW'. And that's nonsense.


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

    Rainer Weikusat wrote:
    > 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'.


    Uh, could it be that your thinking is wrong? Consider this:

    http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/e...s.asp?id=46692
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > India's largest Linux rollout forges ahead despite tremendous odds
    >
    > With no vendor support, Elcot's decision to switch platforms was a daunting task but the opportunity to bypass yearly software licensing fees was an irresistible incentive
    > 1/16/2008 6:00:00 AM
    > by Kanika Goswami
    >
    > On May 26, 2006, Elcot (Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu) let in its first penguin. Things would never be the same again.


    > A year later, Umashankar and his team had moved 30,000 computers and 1,880 severs belonging to some of the state's schools to Linux -- creating possibly the largest Linux rollout in India.


    > "First they migrated from Outlook Express to Mozilla Thunderbird for Windows. From there they took the mail folder and put it into the Suse Linux system, and started operating Thunderbird over Suse Linux system. Novel, isn't it?" Umashankar asks proudly.
    >
    > This interest helped his campaign to migrate completely to Suse Linux, from a 100 percent Windows environment.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Rainer Weikusat wrote:
    > 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'.


    Uh, could it be that your thinking is wrong? Consider this:

    http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/e...s.asp?id=46692
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > India's largest Linux rollout forges ahead despite tremendous odds
    >
    > With no vendor support, Elcot's decision to switch platforms was a daunting task but the opportunity to bypass yearly software licensing fees was an irresistible incentive
    > 1/16/2008 6:00:00 AM
    > by Kanika Goswami
    >
    > On May 26, 2006, Elcot (Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu) let in its first penguin. Things would never be the same again.


    > A year later, Umashankar and his team had moved 30,000 computers and 1,880 severs belonging to some of the state's schools to Linux -- creating possibly the largest Linux rollout in India.


    > "First they migrated from Outlook Express to Mozilla Thunderbird for Windows. From there they took the mail folder and put it into the Suse Linux system, and started operating Thunderbird over Suse Linux system. Novel, isn't it?" Umashankar asks proudly.
    >
    > This interest helped his campaign to migrate completely to Suse Linux, from a 100 percent Windows environment.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7