4 ms·

Isn't this type of attitude what holds Linux back from being a viable desktop OS? Average consumers would want popular apps that they know. How is that harmful?

Isn't this type of attitude what holds Linux back from being a viable desktop OS? Average consumers would want popular apps that they know. How is that harmful? Just because Linux is open source, doesn't mean every app on it has to be. It needs popular apps to ever be a real desktop OS. No different than why Windows phone OS struggles today.

ekianjo 12y ago
> Just because Linux is open source, doesn't mean every app on it has to be No, but every app being open source (or rather Free Software, which is usually the case) can be supported easily by communities of users who can then bring it to tons of different architectures. That's why you get Evince on ARM, for example, and not the official Adobe Acrobat Reader.
- mangecoeur 12y ago
  But on the other hand, every app is just as free to be disregarded by a community of developers even if there is still lots of end users who need it. Or for the software to never reach the level required by intense professional use. Or a understaffed and underfunded community that provides a critical but unsexy part of the infrastructure coughheartbleedcough.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >But on the other hand, every app is just as free to be disregarded by a community of developers even if there is still lots of end users who need it. The problem is not unique to open-source software.
    - mangecoeur 12y ago
      this is true, but if you are going enterprise-grade you at least will sign an x-years support contract. If there are lots of end users for desktop software then it should in theory be profitable for a company to keep making it, rather than being dependent on volunteers to stay interested.
      - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        >If there are lots of end users for desktop software then it should in theory be profitable for a company to keep making it, I've been bitten this way too. It was a hardware/software product, small company made a neat little USB DAQ that became very popular. Bigger entrenched player bought the company and discontinued the line. Shortly after that they released their own product based on the ones they discontinued, but now it requires a much more expensive software package. Just because a commercial product is profitable does not guarantee its longevity.
- icebraining 12y ago
  every app being open source (or rather Free Software, which is usually the case) Virtually every open source application is also Free Software, and vice-versa. The most common licenses (GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, etc) fit both definitions.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    I have seen "Open Source" licenses which do not permit modification nor re-distribution. It's certainly not equivalent to the principle of Free Software.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Ah, yes, there are "open source" licenses that don't follow the Open Source Initiative's definition. Still, Linux distributions tend to abide by it, as far as I know.
drdaeman 12y ago
How GNU/Linux is relevant here? Average consumers know Windows and would want it (seriously, they frequently consider GNU/Linux to be another version of Windows and expect it to behave almost exactly like Windows did, then get disappointed it doesn't - that happened to my dad, for example) GNU's not Windows, nor strives to be one. It's about bringing Free Software to whoever wants/needs it, not winning in popularity contest.
scrollaway 12y ago
I don't care about Adobe Acrobat being closed source (though an open source one would be better). I care about it being a terrible app. There's a lot of linux-compatible closed source apps I enjoy. Teamspeak, games, etc. Adobe Acrobat is one of the ones we absolutely don't need - there are many better alternative.

ekianjo 12y ago

> Just because Linux is open source, doesn't mean every app on it has to be No, but every app being open source (or rather Free Software, which is usually the case) can be supported easily by communities of users who can then bring it to tons of different architectures. That's why you get Evince on ARM, for example, and not the official Adobe Acrobat Reader.

mangecoeur 12y ago
But on the other hand, every app is just as free to be disregarded by a community of developers even if there is still lots of end users who need it. Or for the software to never reach the level required by intense professional use. Or a understaffed and underfunded community that provides a critical but unsexy part of the infrastructure coughheartbleedcough.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >But on the other hand, every app is just as free to be disregarded by a community of developers even if there is still lots of end users who need it. The problem is not unique to open-source software.
  - mangecoeur 12y ago
    this is true, but if you are going enterprise-grade you at least will sign an x-years support contract. If there are lots of end users for desktop software then it should in theory be profitable for a company to keep making it, rather than being dependent on volunteers to stay interested.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      >If there are lots of end users for desktop software then it should in theory be profitable for a company to keep making it, I've been bitten this way too. It was a hardware/software product, small company made a neat little USB DAQ that became very popular. Bigger entrenched player bought the company and discontinued the line. Shortly after that they released their own product based on the ones they discontinued, but now it requires a much more expensive software package. Just because a commercial product is profitable does not guarantee its longevity.
icebraining 12y ago
every app being open source (or rather Free Software, which is usually the case) Virtually every open source application is also Free Software, and vice-versa. The most common licenses (GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, etc) fit both definitions.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  I have seen "Open Source" licenses which do not permit modification nor re-distribution. It's certainly not equivalent to the principle of Free Software.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Ah, yes, there are "open source" licenses that don't follow the Open Source Initiative's definition. Still, Linux distributions tend to abide by it, as far as I know.

drdaeman 12y ago

How GNU/Linux is relevant here? Average consumers know Windows and would want it (seriously, they frequently consider GNU/Linux to be another version of Windows and expect it to behave almost exactly like Windows did, then get disappointed it doesn't - that happened to my dad, for example) GNU's not Windows, nor strives to be one. It's about bringing Free Software to whoever wants/needs it, not winning in popularity contest.

scrollaway 12y ago

I don't care about Adobe Acrobat being closed source (though an open source one would be better). I care about it being a terrible app. There's a lot of linux-compatible closed source apps I enjoy. Teamspeak, games, etc. Adobe Acrobat is one of the ones we absolutely don't need - there are many better alternative.