5 ms·

"Imagine if every web developer that uses Apple "because it is a better desktop than Linux" decided to donate 5% of that to Canonical (or Fedora, or Arch) and t

by st3v3r 10y ago

"Imagine if every web developer that uses Apple "because it is a better desktop than Linux" decided to donate 5% of that to Canonical (or Fedora, or Arch) and took a few hours every month just to try to get their issues sorted out." You just illustrated part of the problem: There are so many different desktop environments, that it would make trying to pick one to be supported, and trying to pick one for writing software a fool's errand. One of the main reasons developers like MacOS is because it has the UNIX underpinnings and terminal power, AND it has a standard GUI toolkit and robust 3rd party software market providing high quality, pleasant to use tools.

rglullis 10y ago
> There are so many different desktop environments. I described Linux distributions, not desktop environments, and the ones I listed are known exactly for having huge support from their communities and that can be easily picked up by anyone wanting to do so. > trying to pick one to be supported, and trying to pick one for writing software This makes no sense. If you are writing software that is multi-platform, anything that runs on some kind of VM, you don't need to know the internals of your development OS. Hell, even if you are developing an application that is specific to one OS, you still should not take your development distribution in consideration. A distribution is just a nicely packaged collection of software, there is no reason to tie your application to any of them. Also, bear in mind that we are talking about ways to have more free software, not to have "one winner alternative of software". Any kind of contribution helps, no matter what distro most people use. Using the excessive number of distributions compared to one single "MacOS" as a justification to not support free software is akin to complaining about going to the supermarket and complaining about too many kinds of healthy fruits and vegetables and using that as an excuse to pig out on Nutella. > developers like MacOS Yours is one of the thousand variations of excuses I heard from people that simply do not bother to even try to adopt free software. I can take you up on a bet that you will find absolutely zero "high quality, pleasant to use" tools that a web developer can only find on MacOS. From web browsers to server software, from compilers to text editors, from source code viewers to even file managers... I can bet that anyone claiming that a Linux-based distro falls short in providing tools has not touched a Linux-based workstation in at least a decade.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  >If you are writing software that is multi-platform, anything that runs on some kind of VM, you don't need to know the internals of your development OS. Ok, so do I write my software using GTK or QT? Perhaps whatever XFCE uses? >I can bet that anyone claiming that a Linux-based distro falls short in providing tools has not touched a Linux-based workstation in at least a decade. I never claimed that. I claimed that the MacOS tools were higher quality with better aesthetics and usability. Once again, because there's only the Cocoa environment to target. If I were to write a tool for Linux, what do I use? QT? GTK? Some other thing?
  - rglullis 10y ago
    XFCE uses GTK, so it is one less thing for you to be concerned. > Once again, because there's only the Cocoa environment to target. You are equating the tools provided by one vendor to the whole ecosystem. It is entirely possible to write MacOS tools using free toolkits on MacOS. > better aesthetics and usability. First, this is entirely subjective. Just as examples, I'd rather use Banshee as my music media manager over iTunes or any of the music players I found for OSX. Firefox and Chromium/Chrome exist for both, and I am yet to see someone that claims Safari "has better aesthetics and usability". Developer tools that are not exclusive to Mac are mostly ported from Linux and require workarounds on Mac (brew as one such example), so I'd argue that the usability on Linux is better. Second, the "better aesthetics" is not due to some virtue of being closed. It is just a matter of economics and resources that are poured into the projects. If you don't think that is the case, ask yourself why many people prefer Android designs over iOS? > What do I use? QT? GTK? Some other thing? You use whatever you want, and whatever toolkit better fits your requirements. It is entirely possible to have desktop application that use one toolkit while the main Desktop Environment uses another. You seem to be stuck in this same mindset from Microsoft developers, where everything is only accepted if blessed by their vendor. This is as anti-freedom as it gets. If you are okay with living in a golden cage, fine. But at least own up to it. All of your excuses so far have been baseless.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      >XFCE uses GTK, so it is one less thing for you to be concerned. Still doesn't resolve the question. Do I use GTK, Qt, or any of the other Linux GUI toolkits. Perhaps FLTK? FOX? Do I have to use raw XLIB? What do I use if I want my application to fit in with the rest of the system? >It is entirely possible to have desktop application that use one toolkit while the main Desktop Environment uses another. Which looks and uses like ass. You have things that conflict in keyboard shortcuts, you have things that don't respect the UI/UX of the rest of the system, which the user presumably chose because they liked that setup. >You seem to be stuck in this same mindset from Microsoft developers, where everything is only accepted if blessed by their vendor. This is as anti-freedom as it gets. No, I'm stuck in the mindset that I want things to work, and work well, and be pleasant to use. Right now Linux has significant barriers to this. And to hand wave it away as not a problem, or something derogatory about "microsoft developers" is not only arrogant, but means that it won't get addressed. >If you are okay with living in a golden cage, fine. But at least own up to it. All of your excuses so far have been baseless. They're only baseless to someone who doesn't care about usability. If you want to sacrifice being able to use software without pulling your hair out for "freedom", go ahead. But don't you dare disparage those of us who value usability of our software.

by st3v3r 10y ago

rglullis 10y ago

> There are so many different desktop environments. I described Linux distributions, not desktop environments, and the ones I listed are known exactly for having huge support from their communities and that can be easily picked up by anyone wanting to do so. > trying to pick one to be supported, and trying to pick one for writing software This makes no sense. If you are writing software that is multi-platform, anything that runs on some kind of VM, you don't need to know the internals of your development OS. Hell, even if you are developing an application that is specific to one OS, you still should not take your development distribution in consideration. A distribution is just a nicely packaged collection of software, there is no reason to tie your application to any of them. Also, bear in mind that we are talking about ways to have more free software, not to have "one winner alternative of software". Any kind of contribution helps, no matter what distro most people use. Using the excessive number of distributions compared to one single "MacOS" as a justification to not support free software is akin to complaining about going to the supermarket and complaining about too many kinds of healthy fruits and vegetables and using that as an excuse to pig out on Nutella. > developers like MacOS Yours is one of the thousand variations of excuses I heard from people that simply do not bother to even try to adopt free software. I can take you up on a bet that you will find absolutely zero "high quality, pleasant to use" tools that a web developer can only find on MacOS. From web browsers to server software, from compilers to text editors, from source code viewers to even file managers... I can bet that anyone claiming that a Linux-based distro falls short in providing tools has not touched a Linux-based workstation in at least a decade.

st3v3r 10y ago
>If you are writing software that is multi-platform, anything that runs on some kind of VM, you don't need to know the internals of your development OS. Ok, so do I write my software using GTK or QT? Perhaps whatever XFCE uses? >I can bet that anyone claiming that a Linux-based distro falls short in providing tools has not touched a Linux-based workstation in at least a decade. I never claimed that. I claimed that the MacOS tools were higher quality with better aesthetics and usability. Once again, because there's only the Cocoa environment to target. If I were to write a tool for Linux, what do I use? QT? GTK? Some other thing?
- rglullis 10y ago
  XFCE uses GTK, so it is one less thing for you to be concerned. > Once again, because there's only the Cocoa environment to target. You are equating the tools provided by one vendor to the whole ecosystem. It is entirely possible to write MacOS tools using free toolkits on MacOS. > better aesthetics and usability. First, this is entirely subjective. Just as examples, I'd rather use Banshee as my music media manager over iTunes or any of the music players I found for OSX. Firefox and Chromium/Chrome exist for both, and I am yet to see someone that claims Safari "has better aesthetics and usability". Developer tools that are not exclusive to Mac are mostly ported from Linux and require workarounds on Mac (brew as one such example), so I'd argue that the usability on Linux is better. Second, the "better aesthetics" is not due to some virtue of being closed. It is just a matter of economics and resources that are poured into the projects. If you don't think that is the case, ask yourself why many people prefer Android designs over iOS? > What do I use? QT? GTK? Some other thing? You use whatever you want, and whatever toolkit better fits your requirements. It is entirely possible to have desktop application that use one toolkit while the main Desktop Environment uses another. You seem to be stuck in this same mindset from Microsoft developers, where everything is only accepted if blessed by their vendor. This is as anti-freedom as it gets. If you are okay with living in a golden cage, fine. But at least own up to it. All of your excuses so far have been baseless.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    >XFCE uses GTK, so it is one less thing for you to be concerned. Still doesn't resolve the question. Do I use GTK, Qt, or any of the other Linux GUI toolkits. Perhaps FLTK? FOX? Do I have to use raw XLIB? What do I use if I want my application to fit in with the rest of the system? >It is entirely possible to have desktop application that use one toolkit while the main Desktop Environment uses another. Which looks and uses like ass. You have things that conflict in keyboard shortcuts, you have things that don't respect the UI/UX of the rest of the system, which the user presumably chose because they liked that setup. >You seem to be stuck in this same mindset from Microsoft developers, where everything is only accepted if blessed by their vendor. This is as anti-freedom as it gets. No, I'm stuck in the mindset that I want things to work, and work well, and be pleasant to use. Right now Linux has significant barriers to this. And to hand wave it away as not a problem, or something derogatory about "microsoft developers" is not only arrogant, but means that it won't get addressed. >If you are okay with living in a golden cage, fine. But at least own up to it. All of your excuses so far have been baseless. They're only baseless to someone who doesn't care about usability. If you want to sacrifice being able to use software without pulling your hair out for "freedom", go ahead. But don't you dare disparage those of us who value usability of our software.