

Why most companies don’t develop software for Linux - fseek
http://fseek.me/2010/03/real-reasons-why-most-companies-dont-waste-their-time-with-linux/

======
nzmsv
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.

------
prewett
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.

~~~
nzmsv
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.

------
bugs
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.

~~~
Periodic
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.

------
voxcogitatio
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.

------
Auzy
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).

------
gahahaha
"no binary compatibility between distributions"

That is a feature, because it gives Free software an advantage. Why make it
easier for closed source developers?

~~~
sgift
Because most users don't care whether software is open or closed source. They
just want software that works.

~~~
rpledge
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

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

~~~
ErrantX
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.

------
viraptor
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.

------
vsync
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!

------
fierarul
Kinda low quality and generic.

------
freetard
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.

