4 ms·
You have to start somewhere and people (users or devs) are more likely to use an OS that has more of the apps they're used to.
by close04 6y ago
You have to start somewhere and people (users or devs) are more likely to use an OS that has more of the apps they're used to.
- badsectoracula 6y agoBut if practicality is the concern they'd use Windows or Linux.
- colesantiago 6y agoIf I was developing software on Linux, which distro should I choose? Can I write a native GUI program that is guaranteed to work on all Linux distros, just as I can develop native software on Windows and target all Windows users?
- ac29 6y agoSure, see for example: https://www.flatpak.org/ https://www.flatpak.org/
- extro 6y agoI am waiting for the next big thing, where the 3rdparty programs comes as a virtual machine image with a complete OS in it, with own kernel for maximal platform-independency.
- tekknik 6y agoIsn’t this kind what java is already? And also if there is another OS running in this VM, this would lead to less efficient executables as you’d have to partition resources like mem
- badsectoracula 6y agoYes, but there is less stuff you can assume to already exist on a Linux desktop environment than on a Windows one, so you either need to bundle those with your application or have them as requirements.
- close04 6y agoThen why work for 18 years to make make a fully fledged OS if in the end the expectation is that it does nothing? For an OS practicality is pretty much always a concern, if not necessarily the top one. Otherwise it's relegated to literal "toy" status. An OS without any practical apps might as well be a GUI made in Flash. Looks nice, does nothing.