<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 13:14, Robert P. J. Day <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rpjday@crashcourse.ca">rpjday@crashcourse.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
is it just me, or is this guy wildly out to lunch?<br></blockquote><div><br>Yes-ish. There is a large variety of commercial, proprietary applications available for Linux, just not from Microsoft. Interestingly, until 'Shake' was discontinued last year, Apple also sold Linux software. You might have seen it's output while watching Lord of the Rings. HP, it was pointed out a few days ago, has no problem supporting every one of their printers on Linux.<br>
<br>You just can't find this stuff via apt-get. So I suppose there is a bit of merit if you paraphrase his argument as "The Open-Source deck is stacked in favour of open-source software being easy to find, install, and use because they make it available to everybody for free in a manor that is easy to find, use, and install".<br>
<br>I only made it half way through the article. I wonder who is ever
swayed by these. All it seems to do is entrench people on whatever side
they started on (much like my argument above will). You can probably guess where I stand on the issue. And if not yet, you sure will! :)<br><br>From the article:<br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<p style="margin-left: 40px;">
Last year I talked to a company (I won’t name them here) whose main
business was on Windows. They have been putting out a binary-only Linux
version of one of their main product for some time now. They admitted
that the Linux versions lagged behind their Windows brethren because of
the sheer effort involved in getting a binary-only app to behave
properly across the major distributions they had targeted. </p><p style="margin-left: 40px;">
Worse, they had to think about each kernel revision within those
distributions, going back about three or four iterations. This
effectively makes them custodians of a dozen or more different editions
of the same app for <i>one platform.</i> (The Windows version runs generically on <i>all</i> versions of Windows from 2000/XP forward.)
</p></blockquote><div>I would really like to know what kind of software this was. It sounds like it is not a hardware driver since it is "their main product" and not a driver for their main product. Why do they need to track kernel changes so closely? Also note that Windows has compatibility limitations as well, but they are typically bureaucratic: Try writing DirectX 10 apps targeting all Microsoft platforms. There you end up just writing to the lowest-common-denominator.<br>
</div></div></div><br>You could say I have a bit of experience writing software (on both Windows and Linux). I can't imagine what they were writing that not only did they have to track every change in the kernel, but that they couldn't handle minor differences between distributions. Not only that, but they apparently were unable to share any code between them or have an automated build system, thus making them manage "a dozen or more different editions". That just sounds to me like they were re-inventing the wheel somewhere and complaining when cars were not designed for theirs. It's too bad they couldn't hire some competent cross-platform developers. Also, I guess tracking your dependancies and using OpenSUSE build service is right out (and stacking the deck in favour of Open Source again. damn).<br clear="all">
<br>The argument that it is bad for Linux to favour open source software and drivers is somewhat silly. I just moved to an nvidia graphics card in my new laptop from an intel in my old. The intel one was a much, much better user experience. Now I can't even test a beta OS release now without checking to see if nvidia managed to grace us with an update for the new X server. So, if you compare lagged updates (which was his citation), and sub-par support, then yes, open source solutions are better for Linux. That said, apparently even nvidia has no real issue with having their driver run on "a dozen or more different editions" of Linux.<br>
<br>The company I work for now sells a closed product based on Linux. We moved to an appliance model due to integration problems, but with other closed-source products (databases, libraries, etc). At least with open source you get a changelog and a revision history. With closed source software you suddenly find out (their support urged our customers to install it) this point release broke ABI compatibility and re-factored all their headers. Woo.<br>
<br>-- <br>Chris Irwin<br><<a href="mailto:chris@chrisirwin.ca">chris@chrisirwin.ca</a>><br>