Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Bruce Stephens <bruce+usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:17:39 +0000
"Beck" <beck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
> Okay but don't you think that is the fault of the program
> manufacturers and the website designers? When people cannot get
> their favourite windows programs on linux then that is the fault of
> the program makers not making linux versions.
Kind of, yes. If a company's not going to sell many copies on
GNU/Linux (or HP-UX, or AIX), then they're unlikely to go to the
expense of producing a version, though. And I wouldn't expect them
to.
Similarly for websites, although nowadays that's a much weaker
argument, since it seems perfectly possible to build websites that
work portably---especially if you don't feel the need to support old
web browsers.
> If the companies attached themselves to versions of windows and mac
> only then that is what the consumer will use, they don't want an
> operating system with little or no support. Companies are the same,
> they want operating systems that will use their software, whether it
> be photoshop, quicken, or whatever it is they want to use. Why
> don't adobe or other companies do linux versions?
Cost, of course.
> People and companies may also be put off linux because generally it
> is not user friendly and unless linux gets away from the command
> prompt terminal-ness of their system I do not think they will be a
> great contender to windows or mac.
Maybe. I have to say I was impressed by an Ubuntu install I did
recently. Some things didn't work (we configured a printer and tested
it, then install opera from the .deb they provide, but opera didn't
see the printer at all), but basically it was fairly painless.
A big part of the problem with Windows command lines is that Windows
command lines really suck. I suspect perceptions might be different
if COMMAND.COM wasn't so horribly primitive.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- References:
- OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Tarquin Mills
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Ewan Mac Mahon
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Bruce Stephens
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Prev by Date: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Next by Date: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Previous by thread: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Next by thread: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
