4 ms·

> Linux desktop efforts never managed to get a coherent vision, as every 3-4 years somebody had the idea to remake everything and screw compatibility That's no

> Linux desktop efforts never managed to get a coherent vision, as every 3-4 years somebody had the idea to remake everything and screw compatibility That's not why Linux Desktop never got traction. Linux on Server got traction because thousands of companies all around the world managed to profit from it. A whole ecosystem was created. When Linux on Desktop was born, Microsoft's platform was already an ecosystem all around the world. Hundreds of thousands of companies had developed applications for MS-DOS and were invested in Microsoft's ecosystem and users had already learnt the paradigms. Clients were already locked-in on Windows. Also, the situation regarding compatibility on Linux is not that different on Windows. KDE changed API 4 times in 25 years. Windows also changed a lot. Visual Basic, WinForms, SilverLight, etc. Actually windows abandoned more API's than KDE and Gnome did. And you can still build a KDE 1 and statically build and ship it (just like apps in Windows) and it will still run fine. [0] KDE and Gnome have always been largely volunteered projects. Of course ~500 volunteered developers who develop something on their free time cannot compete with a worldwide ecosystem. [0] https://www.heliocastro.info/?p=291 https://www.heliocastro.info/?p=291

coldtea 8y ago
>That's not why Linux Desktop never got traction. When Linux on Desktop was born, Microsoft's platform was already an ecosystem all around the world. Hundreds of thousands of companies had developed applications for MS-DOS and were invested in Microsoft's ecosystem and users had already learnt the paradigms. Clients were already locked-in on Windows. That didn't prevent OS X, from a near bankrupt company in 1998-99 with ~2% of PCs in the US, to get to ~10-15% in the same timespan. And that while still introducing a whole new OS in 2000, and changing CPU architecture in 2005. Plus, what I described has been described as the reason Linux didn't get traction by both Linus and Eric Raymond, for what's worth. >Also, the situation regarding compatibility on Linux is not that different on Windows. KDE changed API 4 times in 25 years. Windows also changed a lot. Visual Basic, WinForms, SilverLight, etc. Actually windows abandoned more API's than KDE and Gnome did. It's not even close. MS still supports running even Win95 apps to this day, whatever they used an "abandoned API", so that's a moot point though. Old VB apps still run fine, etc. KDE and Gnome on the other hand had large incompatible changes that frustrated devs, community, and general public. Lots of devs in disfavor of the old design/techs just left the community, and those are harder to replace without a salary.
- emilsedgh 8y ago
  > That didn't prevent OS X, from a near bankrupt company in 1998-99 with ~2% of PCs in the US, to get to ~10-15% in the same timespan. And that while still introducing a whole new OS in 2000, and changing CPU architecture in 2005. Oh my friend you're under-selling Apple. Apple, the most profitable company in the world, didn't get more than 10-15% of the market share. They didn't break any API's either. And they created their own hardware. > It's not even close. MS still supports running even Win95 apps to this day, whatever they used an "abandoned API", so that's a moot point though. Old VB apps still run fine, etc. Linux supports that too. You can still have a KDE1 app running on your Desktop. Nobody has the incentive to do that. But it's pretty doable technically. Just like it's possible to run a Visual Basic app on Windows.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Apple didn't break any APIs? I think you should examine the history of OSX a little more closely.
  - Crinus 8y ago
    > Linux supports that too. You can still have a KDE1 app running on your Desktop. It is not the same, under Windows 10 you can run a Win95 app as-is since the OS comes with the necessary APIs and these APIs still get updates. Under Linux not only nobody has the KDE1 libraries installed, but also not any distribution provides them, they rely on other libraries that are incompatible, are a pain to build and unlike Win32 and similar APIs, KDE1 libraries have never seen any new improvements over the years. As an example for the latter, Win32 applications written for Windows 95 can use the extra text editor control functionality introduced after XP despite this functionality not even existing when they were made. To provide something equivalent, the Linux desktop needs GUI API that will remain backwards compatible in the future (as nothing can be done about the past anyway) while at the same time getting improvements that apply to both new and existing programs.

coldtea 8y ago

>That's not why Linux Desktop never got traction. When Linux on Desktop was born, Microsoft's platform was already an ecosystem all around the world. Hundreds of thousands of companies had developed applications for MS-DOS and were invested in Microsoft's ecosystem and users had already learnt the paradigms. Clients were already locked-in on Windows. That didn't prevent OS X, from a near bankrupt company in 1998-99 with ~2% of PCs in the US, to get to ~10-15% in the same timespan. And that while still introducing a whole new OS in 2000, and changing CPU architecture in 2005. Plus, what I described has been described as the reason Linux didn't get traction by both Linus and Eric Raymond, for what's worth. >Also, the situation regarding compatibility on Linux is not that different on Windows. KDE changed API 4 times in 25 years. Windows also changed a lot. Visual Basic, WinForms, SilverLight, etc. Actually windows abandoned more API's than KDE and Gnome did. It's not even close. MS still supports running even Win95 apps to this day, whatever they used an "abandoned API", so that's a moot point though. Old VB apps still run fine, etc. KDE and Gnome on the other hand had large incompatible changes that frustrated devs, community, and general public. Lots of devs in disfavor of the old design/techs just left the community, and those are harder to replace without a salary.

emilsedgh 8y ago
> That didn't prevent OS X, from a near bankrupt company in 1998-99 with ~2% of PCs in the US, to get to ~10-15% in the same timespan. And that while still introducing a whole new OS in 2000, and changing CPU architecture in 2005. Oh my friend you're under-selling Apple. Apple, the most profitable company in the world, didn't get more than 10-15% of the market share. They didn't break any API's either. And they created their own hardware. > It's not even close. MS still supports running even Win95 apps to this day, whatever they used an "abandoned API", so that's a moot point though. Old VB apps still run fine, etc. Linux supports that too. You can still have a KDE1 app running on your Desktop. Nobody has the incentive to do that. But it's pretty doable technically. Just like it's possible to run a Visual Basic app on Windows.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Apple didn't break any APIs? I think you should examine the history of OSX a little more closely.
- Crinus 8y ago
  > Linux supports that too. You can still have a KDE1 app running on your Desktop. It is not the same, under Windows 10 you can run a Win95 app as-is since the OS comes with the necessary APIs and these APIs still get updates. Under Linux not only nobody has the KDE1 libraries installed, but also not any distribution provides them, they rely on other libraries that are incompatible, are a pain to build and unlike Win32 and similar APIs, KDE1 libraries have never seen any new improvements over the years. As an example for the latter, Win32 applications written for Windows 95 can use the extra text editor control functionality introduced after XP despite this functionality not even existing when they were made. To provide something equivalent, the Linux desktop needs GUI API that will remain backwards compatible in the future (as nothing can be done about the past anyway) while at the same time getting improvements that apply to both new and existing programs.