• Microsoft claims Linux 'at end of life cycle'
    537 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jookia;26283181]You're missing my point. Not porting something to Linux like Photoshop or Steam by using the excuse that there's no market is circular logic as Photoshop isn't on Linux and neither is Steam.[/QUOTE] Okay since you can't understand the principle think of it this way MS Office Student, It is there for mac's but not for Linux, why do you think? There is a market for OSX and for windows but Linux. Sure they could spend time developing for it but honestly OSX takes up ~20%max windows 78% and linux 2%, Am I going to fund a multi-million dollar project for 2% of the market, half of which probably are using because it is free, or to try it out? FUCK no.
yeah that didn't make sense. executables are all the same, it's just installers than can vary hell on windows you got zip, msi, and two different kinds of exe installers so it's not too bad
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;26283323]yeah that didn't make sense. executables are all the same, it's just installers than can vary hell on windows you got zip, msi, and two different kinds of exe installers so it's not too bad[/QUOTE] MSI usually is packages of software, .exe is a single program
[QUOTE=JohnEdwards;26283300]Okay since you can't understand the principle think of it this way MS Office Student, It is there for mac's but not for Linux, why do you think? There is a market for OSX and for windows but Linux. Sure they could spend time developing for it but honestly OSX takes up ~20%max windows 78% and linux 2%, Am I going to fund a multi-million dollar project for 2% of the market, half of which probably are using because it is free, or to try it out? FUCK no.[/QUOTE] where did you get those statistics? if [url=http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp]this[/url] is anything to go by, then Linux jumps between 5% and 8% market share
Ah, so it all comes down to percentages. Percentages aren't accurate as there's no way to find out how many people use an OS unless you count all the installations of all types of the OS. Linux downloads are not an accurate scale as many torrent it and most use a single CD for multiple computers. Then there's the fact that most Linux users have a copy of Windows as Windows applications they use such as games don't run on Linux, so if there's 2% Linux, that 2% of Windows is from Linux users. What you're saying is that 2% of the Windows market is worth it, but the same 2% aren't worth it on Linux.
[QUOTE=Jookia;26283390]Ah, so it all comes down to percentages. Percentages aren't accurate as there's no way to find out how many people use an OS unless you count all the installations of all types of the OS. Linux downloads are not an accurate scale as many torrent it and most use a single CD for multiple computers. Then there's the fact that most Linux users have a copy of Windows as Windows applications they use such as games don't run on Linux, so if there's 2% Linux, that 2% of Windows is from Linux users. What you're saying is that 2% of the Windows market is worth it, but the same 2% aren't worth it on Linux.[/QUOTE] A Project manager isn't going to give a shit about +/- 5%, he is going to base his development decisions based off charts like that, not "theoretical numbers", If you ever worked as a IT person or any job for that matter, you have to go with some physical evidence, those numbers aren't 100% accurate, probably 85-90% accurate, but the majority still wins, the majority has the money too. [editline]25th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=ButtsexV2;26283362]where did you get those statistics? if [url=http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp]this[/url] is anything to go by, then Linux jumps between 5% and 8% market share[/QUOTE] Yeah I was guesstimating those numbers
I guess what it all comes down to is that indie devs have more resources than multi-million dollar companies as they can port applications to Linux.
Let's put aside the issue of porting the code alone of a huge application to Linux (and we all know it's a tremendous effort, except freetards like Jookia who don't understand applications are rarely built with abstraction in mind). Linux has no standard libraries. (The LSB is outdated as fuck and nobody follows it, so it doesn't count.) Every distro is different. How is anyone supposed to ship for that? Vendors are always bitched at to "release their source" so the bugs can be fixed. Yeah, this is the real world. Microsoft isn't open-sourcing Halo, and Activision isn't open-sourcing Call of Duty. Then there's the issue of support. I know a lot of people here are clueless about the lifespan of a software release, but software has to be supported. If you're a large company, you can't really release things as-is and let people fend for themselves, it makes your company look like shit. And you can't really cater to a thousand distros either. ButtsexV2, that's a site for web developers. 5-8% of [b]WEB DEVELOPERS THAT VISIT W3SCHOOLS.COM[/b] use Linux. Real-world usage is not even [b]remotely close[/b] to that much. Know what you're talking about before you try to assert that Linux is relevant on the desktop.
[QUOTE=Jookia;26283558]I guess what it all comes down to is that indie devs have more resources than multi-million dollar companies as they can port applications to Linux.[/QUOTE] more or less TIME, usually work in a small enviroment, can call the shots and not have to listen to someone who goes purely off numbers and profits
Oh yeah, Adobe should definitely ship the Creative Suite for an OS that doesn't even properly support color profiles. That would be a great fucking idea! [editline]25th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Jookia;26282206]I just gave you a detailed reply and you don't address any of my points, great job. My entire post says that using correct design and knowledge of how to do it, it can be done. I never said there'd be no platform-specific bugs, but if you design your application properly, the bugs would only need to be fixed in platform-specific code which is abstracted from the rest of the project.[/QUOTE] You didn't make a point. You're basing your entire argument on anecdotal experience with trivially small pieces of software. Even if you abstract and use OpenGL and all that shit, you're still going to have platform-specific bugs. [b]Libraries[/b] have platform specific bugs. Guess what? If you're abstracting, you have to use multi-platform libraries! Guess what else? It costs a lot more to use something clunky like OpenGL instead of something easy to write for like DirectX! Guess whether companies like to save development time because it saves them development costs because they have to pay their developers!
We've completely strayed off topic and I don't have any more arguments. Also, insulting me by calling me a 'freetard' doesn't add anything to your post and makes you frankly look immature.
[QUOTE=Jookia;26284001]We've completely strayed off topic and I don't have any more arguments. Also, insulting me by calling me a 'freetard' doesn't add anything to your post and makes you frankly look immature.[/QUOTE] ur just mad because all your rebuttles are shit, and you can't grasp money is a major factor for deciding how and for who things are developed for
Dude I'm not mad at all, I don't have any more arguments. I know that money is a major factor, but I don't understand how an indie team can port their projects while a multimillion dollar company can't.
[QUOTE=Jookia;26284067]Dude I'm not mad at all, I don't have any more arguments. I know that money is a major factor, but I don't understand how an indie team can port their projects while a multimillion dollar company can't.[/QUOTE] Because indie consists of >50 devs all working together, and aren't expecting major returns on investments, they are trying to strech themselves to get funded by another company to specailize in an area and do what they enjoy. OR just make stuff for fun on the side but still have a day job, they can specialize, but a big corporate world time is money and you have competitors really to over run you, thus you push out products faster for the majority, not the minority
I'm looking at this from a developer's perspective, not a company perspective.
[QUOTE=Jookia;26284143]I'm looking at this from a developer's perspective, not a company perspective.[/QUOTE] No you are looking at this a a developer without money issues, add that in and you become a company
I'm looking at this disregarding money as a factor. Porting something doesn't cost money.
Steam and games are literally the only things that make me use Windows still. With Steam on Macs, Linux shouldn't be that far away...
[QUOTE=Jookia;26284195]Porting something doesn't cost money.[/QUOTE] You're joking, right?
[QUOTE=Jookia;26284195]I'm looking at this disregarding money as a factor. Porting something doesn't cost money.[/QUOTE] You have to pay someone to port it or pay someone to code it in a language which porting in not nessicary, which usually drives the amount you have to pay them up, thus casuing you to have to sell more products
lmao, even if your software is ready-to-port without any additional changes, it still costs extra money to port
Yes, you pay somebody to do something. But the act of porting itself doesn't cost money. I can port things right now and it doesn't cost anybody a cent.
[QUOTE=Jookia;26284443]Yes, you pay somebody to do something. But the act of porting itself doesn't cost money. I can port things right now and it doesn't cost anybody a cent.[/QUOTE] someone has to press the button, the person that does that is going to want money for it
Yes, that person will want money for it. But it doesn't cost them money to port it. You're getting the idea of getting paid to port something and paying somebody to port something mixed up with porting something.
[QUOTE=Jookia;26284469]Yes, that person will want money for it. But it doesn't cost them money to port it. You're getting the idea of getting paid to port something and paying somebody to port something mixed up with porting something.[/QUOTE] ok, i guess we are going to assume adobe should let the creative suite port itself then damn you adobe, let CS choose for itself already ! ! !
I don't know how to make it clearer. Do you want me to record myself porting something, finishing the port and then not receiving money as a proof of concept?
[QUOTE=Jookia;26284469]Yes, that person will want money for it. But it doesn't cost them money to port it. You're getting the idea of getting paid to port something and paying somebody to port something mixed up with porting something.[/QUOTE] 10/10 would get trolled again
I don't understand how you don't understand that the act of porting something does not cost money, only time and effort. As a company, paying somebody to do it though does.
I hear way fewer people talking about Linux than I did ten years ago, but that might be because I'm hanging out with different people.
This thread's gone to shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.