Why most companies don’t develop software for Linux | Hacker News Reader

Why most companies don’t develop software for Linux

fseek.me

14 pointsfseek23 comments

Actually, I'm not missing any software on Linux. I do keep a Windows VM, but it's only for some crappy software that came with my universal remote, and for testing my own programs on Windows.

Further, a large fraction of open code gets written by paid devs working at IBM and the like. These companies don't think this is a waste of time.

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 working? Maybe one of the API calls works differently, better try running in XP compatibility mode.

Simple stuff works great in new versions of Windows, but my experience is that if you expect it to work, you'd better test it on every version of Windows, because there will be version specific bug on one of them.

To be fair, Windows lists binary compatibility as a feature. Linux ignores it entirely. And hardcoding paths is a really dumb move (which sadly does not make it any less popular). But yes, Windows backwards compatibility is not perfect.

> 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)".

I think most applications don't hard code system directory names since they differ not only between versions of windows, but also between languages (for example, I believe the aforementioned directory would be c:\programme on the german version of windows xp).

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.

When I first started having to support Matlab for a group I was surprised to see how well supported it was on Windows, Linux, and OS X. All of them are able to install using a total of two DVDs and they all can connect to the common license server. There are some annoyances, but they're present on all platforms.

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.

Let's assume that the author is right when he says that all companies ignore linux. What would make that such a big disaster? Is there some specific proprietary app that _needs_ to be ported to linux? I myself haven't found a task that lacks a convenient binary, but maybe that's just me?

That, and 'EMACS vs. VIM' is a dead horse. Stop beating it.

You also forget that since the Linux kernel is GPL, its probably illegal to release closed source drivers (such as Nvidia's for Linux). I might be wrong, but we all know that the legal grey area Nvidia exploits if tested in court might not hold up. Nvidia though, despite using a closed source module is probably the main reason linux survived. Then again, what kind of sensible OS requires drivers to be recompiled to work the moment a kernel is upgraded?

Also, Microsoft goes to incredible lengths to ensure backwards compatibility (even with their competitors software), whereas any backwards compatibility in Linux seems to be coincidental.

Those are 2 reasons I use Windows 7 now. But that's just my opinion (all OS's these days have their own problems).

"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.

I wish I could mod you up more. I am a big foss fan boy (can see by my nick), but most people don't care about licensing, if the code is open or not, etc.

They want something that works and fit their needs. That's it.

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

Hackers are people too!

If all OSS developers shared this attitude, there would not be free software today.

Let me fix it for you: If all desktop OSS developers shared this attitude, there would be not be good free desktop software today.

And this is kind of true, isn't it?

I fail to see why people think "Free" and "Easy to use" are mutually exclusive. If Firefox required people to run ./configure;make;make install on Windows to get it running (not to mention dealing with missing dependencies) it wouldn't have the marketshare it has today.

If OSS wants to become truly mainstream the people creating it need to focus on the experience, not just the code

Disagreed; i think all it is is that FOSS developers like making cool stuff, and for them the setup is not a chore.

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.

This is true! Many users aren't even aware of the difference between platforms, and there's no reason for them to be. (My mom isn't a dumb person because she does not understand her computer more completely.)

And why should we care about most users? Gnu/Linux is a great platform for free software, why make it something it isn't? If you want a great proprietary platform, go for windows. Windows won the proprietary war 20 years ago, foss can't beat them at their own game. Gnu/Linux is good as a foss platform and that's where we should put work into. Not into making another windows, we'll never catch up on that front.

I don't get the "There is no binary compatibility between distributions" point really... Examples against it: Firefox, OpenOffice, Quake. They seem to work quite well on most distributions even as binaries.

Also - you can always write for Python / .NET / Java / ... and be portable for that VM.

1. Release the source code instead. Everyone will be better off.

2. If you do #1 the relevant distributions will package the app for you.

3. Valid point.

4. He says Emacs but doesn't specify XEmacs, so, off with his head!

Kinda low quality and generic.

As a free software guy, I'm glad proprietary apps are not being ported to gnu/linux. If I wanted proprietary apps, I probably would have stayed with windows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com