digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at electronista.com

13% of developers picking Linux, outpacing Vista

electronista.com — Despite Microsoft's efforts, the majority of developers still aren't writing with Windows Vista in mind, a new study by Evans Data says. Only 8% are specifically coding with Vista in mind, while Linux is actually higher at 13% -- evidence that Microsoft's new OS isn't catching on.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Kingoftherings, on 06/17/2008, -34/+83Great news for the Linux Community. Hopefully we'll see more apps being made, and more bugs being fixed.
    • Rolcol, on 06/17/2008, -15/+3I'm hoping to get Adobe CS4 for Linux. (or whatever's next)
    • KCorax, on 06/17/2008, -14/+75This article is such FUD. It treats Vista as an entirely new operating system and splits it from XP, even though the primary vector of development is the free-for-all .net framework.

      In order to get fair, we should then split up linux development between the various distros, then amortize for the portion of installations that are used entirely to run an Apache web server and so on.

      Don't give me the "even M$ doesn't use the .net framework" treatment. It's a software vendor platform and it clearly can't and shouldn't be used for the operating system itself. That said almost the entire developer division products (Visual Studio, SQL server, Expression) use it everywhere.
      • grimward, on 06/17/2008, -21/+5Excuse me... KCorax, but are you a wise beard man? :O (hurrah for the voice of reason!)
      • Ravatar, on 06/17/2008, -5/+18That's exactly what I was thinking.

        All my MS work is done in C#/ASP.net now, I touch on C++/CLI very rarely, but even then it's portable enough to work on anything Windows 2000+. I'm not really sure how you "develop for Vista" on .net beyond setting a few application permission requests that you should be doing anyway.

        Garbage FUD article, I'm really curious if they're counting PHP/Perl/Python in the "linux" count.
      • AmaDaden, on 06/17/2008, -4/+18As a programmer the difference between Vista and XP is far far FAR greater then the difference between Fedora and Ubuntu. If you write something for one distro by the nature of *nix programing it should work on most other distros. Yes, .NET is a good bridge between the two OSes and nullifies most differences. But that is not the point of this article. The point is they are not THINKING about Vista not that the code will not work on it.

        "Only eight percent of software firms surveyed were specifically CODING WITH VISTA IN MIND, while additional data brought together by CNET indicates that 49 percent are still writing for Windows XP; 13 percent are programming for Linux, according to reports."

        To them Vista is, for whatever reason, not as important as XP. So what I am really seeing from this is that all the old Windows XP coders are not moving on to Vista. The digg title was misleading and clearly showing a Linux bias but that does not invalidate the story.
        • spectre_25gt, on 06/17/2008, -2/+5Just because the APIs are there doesn't mean that an application written for one distribution is going to work on another. You're forgetting all of the dependencies that an application might need. In a perfect world it shouldn't be an issue, but in the real world when software is written for RHEL or SUSE it's often troublesome for Ubuntu users, like myself, to make use of it without setting up the build environment and compiling it.
        • AmaDaden, on 06/17/2008, -1/+8@spectre_25gt Very true, but the same is also true for .NET and Java. So if the parent wants to call the .NET platform independent then i will look at *nix apps the same way. I am currently working as a Java programmer and we constantly have platform dependency issues. I have talked to .NET coders and they have said the same. When coded correctly there is no issue but there is always someone who puts in a hacky fix somewhere and mucks it all up.
        • KCorax, on 06/17/2008, -2/+4@AmaDaden You are completely out of touch, or you haven't used .net at all.
          As a .net developer I can't find anything in the framework that can distinguish the operation of an object among operating systems. There is a certain call you can make to ask what OS you are running on, but the frameworks services (from UI to database) don't care or know.
          There are some libraries that were available as add-ons on XP (and you're damn right certain that we packaged those with our apps) and are standard with Vista, but that's about it.
        • AmaDaden, on 06/17/2008, -1/+4@KCorax I'm glad you keep your code running smoothly but a lot of people don't. As I said "When CODED CORRECTLY there is no issue". Old code that was written by people who don't know what they are doing in the first place and left no documentation tends to be the fairly common. THAT is the code that has dependency issues and THAT is the code that people will have trouble moving from XP to Vista. Since a move like this is rare they tend to not clean things up much more then is needed. This is not really the case when you have *nix code that is targeted for several distros since you want it to work on all the distros at the same time. Since using *nix alone is rare it would be dumb to only target one *nix distro.

          FYI: I am not trying to say *nix code is better written only that there is FAR more reason to check for platform issues when writing it.
    • diggydougie, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5Bugs? What bugs?
      • Aleksej, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1“Enhancement” bugs in bug tracking systems.
    • mfearby, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4This is great news for Java, too. You'd be mad not to consider Java/Swing as the preferred development platform for ordinary database-type applications. Writing a product for managing check-ins at a gym, for example, would make far greater sense as a Java app than something written as a .NET-only or Cocoa-only program if you want as many customers into the future and a smooth upgrade path.

      I used the gym check-in program as an example because I've seen some pretty dodgy Windows applications serving this purpose in my time, and most are ugly, evil, things that rely on the Borland Database Engine or MDAC. Way to make life difficult when it could be a simple Java/Swing app using JDBC with nothing evil under the hood.

      I won't suggest that writing games or high-end graphics programs in Java is a good idea, but there's a majority of stuff out there written using OS-specific tools that just doesn't make sense.
  • mckooiker, on 06/17/2008, -34/+20That's amazing......with only 1-2% of market share I would be tempted to pick the more popular OS as a developer.....
    Nevertheless I'm happy with these numbers!
    • mynameistux, on 06/17/2008, -12/+1me to.
    • picsectionpleez, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6Why digg this guy down? It's a perfectly logical stance.
    • init100, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5You are probably forgetting that the market share of Linux in other market sectors are much higher than the market share in desktop systems. Far from all developers target desktops, there is the server market, the embedded market, etc.
  • estvir, on 06/17/2008, -40/+370Unbelievably stupid, here are some of the things wrong with this:

    - People don't really targe a specific version of Windows any more, they generally target .Net.
    - Since when do developers suddenly develop for a single version of Windows? Win 98 versions of software was available for some time despite Win 2000 AND Win XP being out.
    - Who did they survey? Oh, a bunch of people (A whole 380, watch out!) who would put up with Evans' spam? How damning.
    - It's worded rather ambiguously.
    - Just because their programs do not use something that is exclusively Vista-only it does not mean they're ignoring Vista, chances are if it works on XP it works on Vista.. and maybe even 2000 too.
    - 13%, that's bigger than 8%, right? Well, add 8 + 49 and you have, wait for it, 57! Guess how much bigger than 13 that is!
    - Look at the reasons why they do not like Vista, basically all of them have to do with the devlopers required to actually have a clue when developing, like not requiring admin access when you shouldn'nt need it.

    And so on.. but hey, it's bashing 'M$' so quick, Digg it up! Who cares about full of rbubsh it is! Why don't you guys just submit a daily story to Digg that says "LOL M$ HAH WINDOZ" and be done with stories like this? Maybe they could treat the story like the podcast section.

    And why the hell does the textbox for comments jump up/down?
    • Murdats, on 06/17/2008, -3/+63as soon as I saw the 'targeting vista' I assumed this was a very slanted study.

      No one targets vista, they target windows, just like very few people 'target' fedora 9 or ubuntu heron
      now lets compare people who target windows compared to those who target linux.
      • aautopsy, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1349+13=62% developers targeting windows. It doesn't change that Linux has 13% of developers (according to this survey) are targeting windows.

        On the other hand, this isn't even the slightest surprising to me. Linux user to dev ratio is obviously a lot lower than windows.
    • skywake, on 06/17/2008, -44/+4I hate people like you if they are Mac fans, Linux users, Microsoft fans, Nintendo fans, Sony Fans, Creationists, Evolutionists, Athiests.... You might be right but you are also a tool.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 06/17/2008, -2/+13People who look beyond statistics? Look, I am an atheist, but Ill respect a creationist who THINKS about religion over a blind follower of a sect any day of the week. and you don't need to capitalize atheist, unless it is the first word of a sentence, it is not a religion.
        • MWeather, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1"Look, I am an atheist, but Ill respect a creationist who THINKS about religion over a blind follower of a sect any day of the week."

          Blind faith is a key component of all religions. If they had proof, there would only be one religion.
      • monoa, on 06/17/2008, -5/+7"...Creationists ... might be right..."

        You may want to spend a little more time thinking about that one....
      • Murdats, on 06/17/2008, -1/+23"Mac fans, Linux users, Microsoft fans, Nintendo fans, Sony Fans,"

        the fact that the only one there that isnt followed by 'fans' is quite telling.
      • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -2/+5It's one thing to hate "fanb0iz," but why the hell do you hate people with certain religious beliefs? Does it bother you that much that anyone dares to question the Catholic Church? And how does being an atheist, etc. make one a tool? If anything, it's the opposite because you aren't blindly following any beliefs.
    • grimward, on 06/17/2008, -10/+20Estvir, what's also pretty obvious to anyone whose been in corporate IT is that companies are pretty much phasing in Vista at the same pace they phased in XP, that is.. they're doing it very slowly as they both need system stability but they also want the new features. And last I heard, developers work in companies too .. go figure! :O

      So Estvir, you have my digg for tearing this crappy article apart, let's all laugh.. point our fingers and bury this POS.
      • secrity, on 06/17/2008, -4/+11I disagree with you about corporations and Vista vs XP. When XP came out there was a bit of resistance, but I don't recall seeing hostility toward XP. Many companies took a go slow and see what happens approach with XP, I am seeing outright resistance and hostility toward Vista.

        I know of companies, including the one that I work for, that have specific plans NOT to install Vista on any corporate computers. The corporate standard distribution that is installed on every new or recyled laptop has XP and Office 2003. Vista and Office 2007 were evaluated and rejected.
        • B1663r, on 06/17/2008, -8/+11Actually, you are simply wrong... I cant find a business forum to assert that, but I can find numerous gaming forums where there was outright hostility FOUR years after windows XP release. Just look at the forums about the OS requirements for Battlefield 2. Shock, Horror!!! In 2005 EA wanted their users to upgrade to XP!!! Whats more, the more vociferous haters found a way to install BF2 on windows 2000 computers...

          If that is not outright hostility towards XP, then I am mistaken...



        • Ravatar, on 06/17/2008, -1/+7The problem is that they don't even know WHY they don't want Vista.

          - Deploying Vista with WIM is a hell of a lot easier than previous methods.
          - Group Policies are WAAAYYY better this time around with Vista. Thousands of new options including better control of removable drives and IO ports.
          - UAC does a decent job once the system is set up properly. GP settings can automatically deny UAC requests so your users don't get prompted when they don't need to be.
          - WinRM kicks the pants off of Remote Desktop
          - Event reporting is kick ass now. You have remote features and support for customizable event queries.
          - Network Access Protection to help prevent virus outbreaks.

          Vista has TONS of features specific to the enterprise
          The list could go on for miles. People who are running Windows Server 2003 servers with 2000/XP clients are doing themselves a disservice by refusing to consider a greatly beneficial update to their infrastructure.
        • Axed33, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2You have to remember that most people upgrading to XP were coming from Windows 95/98/ME or NT4 - a big leap. No one in their right mind would look at a new computer with XP on it and ask "Can I get Windows ME on that?".

          Windows 2000 was always a niche OS - businesses used it, but only technically savvy people used it at home. In this way it was able to pave the way for XP by ensuring that hardware manufacturers and software developers had time to prepare drivers and update their code for NT5. But since it was by no means a mandatory upgrade, lack of initial support wasn't a huge deal.

          Vista should have been another Windows 2000. Focus on laying a solid foundation first - a business OS basically, along the lines of NT4, Win2k - and leave it to the second release to drive mass adoption. MS got it ass-backwards this time by trying to drive mass adoption before the industry was ready.
        • estvir, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2> Vista should have been another Windows 2000. Focus on laying a solid foundation first - a business OS basically, along the lines of NT4, Win2k - and leave it to the second release to drive mass adoption

          This is EXACTLY what did. With Vista (And Server 2008) they made a boatload of drastic changes and Windows 7 is to be more polished, etc.
    • lonehunter01, on 06/17/2008, -7/+5Amen
    • dkitch, on 06/17/2008, -5/+12Rational comments? On my Digg?

      It's more likely than you think
    • earthmansurfer, on 06/17/2008, -3/+20I am a Linux user, but what you said is even clear to me.
      Be careful of statistic people. But, that being said, Linux is really making headway in many areas.
      M.S. really made a mistake by not having a small footprint O.S. for computers like the EE, etc. That is biting them.
    • Davers, on 06/17/2008, -5/+26Not to mention the fact that "Vista" is referring to one version of an operating system, whereas "Linux" refers to dozens of operating systems. A fair comparison would be developers coding for "Windows" versus "Linux", or if they really want to say Vista, "Vista vs." a single Linux distro.
    • bobangitanov2, on 06/17/2008, -23/+5You are right. But Vista sucks, and XP doesn't suck much less.
      Go TuX !
    • christianboutin, on 06/17/2008, -0/+22I'm rooting for Linux as much as it's possible without turning into a fanboy. But my thoughts on that article were pretty much summed up by you. Good show.
      • estvir, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6I do what I can, thank you. I too 'promote' Linux and other FOSS (Go FreeBSD!) when I can but if the pro-FOSS side wants to claim it's above MS' tactics than they need to not use MS' tactics.
    • BadAsh71, on 06/17/2008, -1/+10I think by "targeting Vista" or "coding with Vista in mind" the intent is that a programmer would intentionally make use of new UI Elements and other features of Vista. I can't see many developers doing that because then they would have to have multiple code branches to ensure compatibility with other, more used versions of Windows.

      I agree, more people target .NET and give less focus to a particular version of Windows. However, if Vista really did have the market share like Microsoft claims, more developers would utilize features of Vista in their applications which isn't happening... using .NET or anything else.
      • Ravatar, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6Remember that Aero Glass/UAC is all automatic at runtime. Most people don't need to do anything to their apps to make it "Vista Ready" beyond a few manifest changes that won't affect earlier versions of windows.
      • AmaDaden, on 06/17/2008, -2/+2I believe they mean they are making sure the software works in Vista. Things like .NET and Java are "cross platform" but that does not mean you are problem free when you move from one platform to another. I am currently a Java programmer and have become more then aware of what ***** code can do when you upgrade the JVM from one version to another.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 06/17/2008, -4/+18I really cannot tell people to switch over to linux. I've had two distros on my computer: SuSE and Ubuntu and both of them sucked. Open office just isn't as streamlined as the MS Office package.
      • Ravatar, on 06/17/2008, -1/+9Yeah I was running OO for a while, but I started missing Outlook and threw on the rest of Office 2007. Haven't looked back since.
      • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1I've used SUSE before, and IIRC YaST was awful, but Ubuntu sucked? I understand you didn't like Openoffice, but how can you honestly say it sucked (in comparison to Windows)?

        /Actually asking a serious question, not making a sarcastic M$ SUX012Z comment
        • Ravatar, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3I enjoyed my time playing with Ubuntu as a media center PC. Unfortunately, there was no support for overscan on my videocard with connected LCD projection TV.. so for me it was time to head back to XP MCE. Hopefully they have that feature implemented at this point, it's been like two years.
        • secrity, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2I am a Unix sys admin and use Linux for almost everything. I really dislike OpenOffice, mostly because it is quite slow even on some rather powerful Linux boxes. I run MS Office using Crossover and it works very well for what I need.
    • loker269, on 06/17/2008, -1/+7eww you got logic mixed in with my digg comments....
    • silverbulletky, on 06/17/2008, -1/+8I'm waiting for someone to answer his question about the text box jumping around...
    • known, on 06/17/2008, -9/+2Open Source Software promotes Competition.
      Closed Source Software promotes Collusion.
      • Murdats, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8I would assume it to be the opposite.

        if you can see the source of a project you like, you can build on and contribute to it.
        if you see a closed source project you like, your only option is to build a competitor to it.
    • silfiriel, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5I agree, you can run 99,9% of XP apps on Vista with absolutely no problem.
      But it would've been nice if the story was true.
    • Wakuko, on 06/17/2008, -8/+1"they generally target .Net."

      What??!?

      What "developer" uses .Net?

      I want to know one!

      Expect public embarrassment if you come forward.
      • nephilimx, on 06/17/2008, -1/+7public embarrassment over C#? you shouldnt embarrassed since it pays so well.
        • Wakuko, on 06/17/2008, -9/+1Gay ass-***** is dearly well paid if you wanna give it a try...
      • picsectionpleez, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3While I don't "target" .net many developers do use it, for a variety of reasons. -1 for you sir.
      • DarknessGP, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2.Net is nice and handy if you know how to use it correctly.
      • thedarkwolf, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2Uh, I have been developing using LAMP for most of my life, last year I took a part time job consulting using .NET

        People definitely do develop using .NET, and although i personally prefer Linux, some of the tools .NET provides are really useful.
      • Ravatar, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3The "developer" who likes having a job uses .net framework.

        C# is one HELL of a powerful language, I'd venture to say I prefer it over C++ at this point (maybe not C++/CLI yet). Even VB.net has teeth now.

        The new managed Vista APIs are very sharp. You, however, are not so sharp.
    • TnTBass, on 06/17/2008, -4/+3I disagree with you on a few points, specifically XP and Vista application compatibility. I can't count how many times I've grabbed an app from the net that doesn't work properly in Vista without some tweaking, such as running as admin, or setting the compatibility options. I've also ran into quite a few that won't run, even with those options set. I would say: "Chances are they won't run unless you specifically set compatibility options." Writing Vista specific code would eliminate these compatibility problems.

      Oh, and I completely ignored the stats. 83% of stats are made up on the spot anyways. I did find it interesting that they state the number of Linux and Mac developers has increased. Of course, those numbers could be bogus as well (and I suspect they are), but the truth of the matter is that more developers are moving away from Windows specific code, and that is a good thing.
    • h0er, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5You sir, are my hero!
      • estvir, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1I will gladly sign your mousepad and sleep with your sister.
    • juicebag, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5I feel exactly the same way. That being said, I don't know why the hell I come here anymore.
    • t0x2c, on 06/17/2008, -3/+5"And why the hell does the textbox for comments jump up/down?"
      It's just a bug with Windows Vista...
    • bjarki, on 06/17/2008, -4/+1if you are programing specially for Windows Vista, then you are writing a WCF(Windows Presentation Foundation) application, so it is possible to just write for Vista.
      • bgreen77, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4While you meant WPF (WCF is Windows Communication Foundation), WPF applications can run on XP no problem.
    • linuxpenguin, on 06/17/2008, -2/+2If you don't want to see stuff like this, you know you can just block the Linux/UNIX section of Digg.

      Not only that, but 8% + 49% = 57%, which is the percentage of developers writing specifically for XP, added to the percentage of developers writing specifically for Vista. Meaning that 49% of the developers you tacked on there, don't care about their apps being compatible with Vista. So if the program doesn't work in Vista, they don't care - meaning that you get no support from them if it doesn't work. You're also right that Win98 versions of software were released while Win2K and WinXP were already out - but if you remember, when they were released, many people had compatibility issues that held them back from switching for a long time (when it didn't matter anymore, because now all the new programs were made with XP in mind) - but now Vista's been out for what, a year? Two years? And there's still not much desire to ever switch to it.

      You're also right about the reasons being somewhat lame. . . but that's because they're used to being able to do it the other, less secure way. To a degree it's laziness on their part, but Windows has been criticized for allowing programs to do this for quite some time now. These practices would be virtually gone if not for the fact that all prior versions of Windows allowed for this. If Win2K and XP didn't allow it, then everyone would've changed by now and it would be no big deal - notice that Linux also is locked down in many ways, yet it seems that this 13% has no issue with it. Why? Because in the past, Linux has always been more locked down, so long-time Linux developers are used to it and new converts don't even see it show up in tutorials since it was never allowed in Linux in the first place. Also, corporations often prefer to not switch - they keep their current technology just because they don't want to spend the money to upgrade. This comes into play when considering whether or not to upgrade their systems and internal software to Vista - maybe it'll be a piece of cake, but maybe not, and some of their proprietary software might need to be rewritten which costs money and time which they can just as easily spend tackling their other current projects on the list.
      • estvir, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1So, the solution to the retarded, hypocritical stories pushed by the pro-FOSS crowd is to simply not look at the Linux section?

        That's stupid. I like Linux and I do not want to block the section, how about you idiots step up your game?
    • mikemx, on 06/17/2008, -2/+3What is it about the mentality of linux crazies that they have to concoct such deluded rubbish and skewed stats to justify their existence? If linux was all they claimed it was, they wouldn't have to lie and deceive to try and hype it up. It smacks of desperation, of dishonesty and just plain madness. The linux zealot is a person that cannot be trusted.
    • finezapa, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2amen.
    • edwinjose, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1I am a Linux user and I say Amen to that.
  • sfacets, on 06/17/2008, -15/+1the "WOW" of it all.
  • crackah, on 06/17/2008, -40/+144Ergh yawn. Vista isnt as bad as digg has you believe.
    • frup, on 06/17/2008, -33/+17Yeah it's a lot worse, judging from the roughly hundreds of laptops and desktops I know of that have all had it removed and replaced with XP or Linux.
      • reisrocks, on 06/17/2008, -21/+11ditto. More people than ever are running away from vista with flailing arms, towards linux.

        Reason: Vista is getting slower by the day.
        • Davers, on 06/17/2008, -9/+19Vista's getting FASTER by the day. Since it's release, updates have increased its performance to match XP's.
        • reisrocks, on 06/17/2008, -9/+8"Now lets get down and dirty. I am convinced that Ubuntu is the way of the future. [...] Vista is getting heavier and heavier by the day and I hate it [...]."

          Direct quote from a vista user.

          I'm guessing he is referring to Vista slowdowns due to installing more software everyday, as the registry (still windows's single weakest point of failure) increasingly bloats everyday, as spyware installs itself without the knowledge of the user.. background tasks running without the knowledge of the user etcetera.
      • brettalton, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1As a computer technician, I don't really care what the user wants, so long as they want to keep changing it ;).
    • bentman78, on 06/17/2008, -6/+18I've been running it since november of last year without problems. Like the OS. I also use freebsd as well, but it's a pain to set up the desktop the way you like it.
      • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2Maybe try Arch or Gentoo or something (or even Ubuntu/Mint if you want extremely easy)?
    • BadAsh71, on 06/17/2008, -14/+5Actually yeah, it is as bad as Digg would lead you to believe.

      Hardware and Driver issues aside, its just a bad OS. With Vista, Microsoft took the approach that to maintain Security they shouldn't allow you to do anything on your computer, even if you are the Administrator without the OS first asking you if you are sure.

      I love SUDO on Linux and wouldn't mind that approach in Windows if it were for Admin only stuff but just simple, non-Admin tasks in Vista require you to click "ok" to continue... lame.

      But back to the hardware, drivers issues, that is hella lame... I can get all the same features Vista gives me with lesser quality hardware using Linux... if you ask me, Microsoft and their strategic business partners strategically put in code to ensure people would have to upgrade to more expensive hardware just to use Vista. Case in point, NVidia had Drivers for all/most of their legacy Video Cards to provide Vista Support but just in time for Vista's release they dropped a good 3/4 of all of video cards from any future updates which meant NO Vista Drivers.... talk about lame... I guess we know who sleeps with Microsoft.

      I went to a hands-on training course a couple of weeks ago and all the users that had Windows XP had no problems maintaining connection to the Wi-Fi connection we were given but all the Vista users had problems, constantly getting kicked off. Oddly enough I was even using a "Made for Vista" laptop... go figure.

      Just a crappy OS all around.
      • mGARANDEUR1, on 06/17/2008, -6/+10You do know that you can customize your OS to not give you those security messages all of the time, right? Why does everybody always bring up drivers when they talk about vista? Linux is the worst operating system to deal with driver issues.
        • specialbuddy1, on 06/17/2008, -5/+4not quite. I used Vista this weekend and wanted to show some pictures and it couldn't even read my SD card. That's *****. Linux can do it no problem.
        • insertAliasHere, on 06/17/2008, -4/+6Wow, you've listed one experience with one piece of hardware that Linux could read and windows couldn't? Well, hell, you've convinced me!
        • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -1/+3"Linux is the worst operating system to deal with driver issues."

          BS. Not sure how else I can reply to that. Come back after you've done fresh installs of XP, Vista, and several Linux distros on several different test machines.
        • specialbuddy1, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2It's not only SD cards. I have a Kodak and HP printer that work better with linux and I don't have to install the ***** drivers and software that try to take over my computer. Not only that, I can transfer songs to my Ipod touch using the wireless. So everything I own and need drivers for work better on linux so go ***** yourself insertAliasHere.
        • insertAliasHere, on 06/18/2008, -1/+1A little hostile there, huh specialbuddy? Did I insult you? I like my Ubuntu install and all, but you fanatics need to lay off a bit. You come off a little crazy.
        • specialbuddy1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1You didn't insult me, I just want you to go ***** yourself.
    • MacParrot, on 06/17/2008, -2/+15Vista WILL get better. Considering the vast amount of software and hardware that Microsoft has to account for, it's amazing that they can put out a new version at all. No OS is without their problems. I'm a Mac guy and I installed Leopard on my kid's G5 iMac and then took it off because their wireless went to complete crap. So until Apple fixes wireless for G5s (the G4 iBook and QS 933 G4 tower I put it on worked without issues), their machine will stay with 10.4.

      Does this sound familar? How many people do we see on digg slamming Vista for some fault it introduced to their computer. Nothing and no one is perfect and I'm sure MS is working very hard on fixing the problems that Vista has. Read the mags, keep up with the reviews, and once your issues are solved, try it again.
      • smoothdogg00, on 06/17/2008, -4/+4But the majority of people have seen those convincing Mac commercials... how could they believe differently?

        /sarcasm
      • tripzero, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1When Microsoft fixes the annoyances with their toolkit and window manager (ie, wth can't I scroll on a window unless I click inside it?), adds virtual workspaces (no, addons don't count), adds good package management, and stops annoying me, then I'll try vista. Until then, peace out sucka!
    • silfiriel, on 06/17/2008, -4/+3agreed, the gerilla marketing did the best it could to create a bad image for vista.
    • digitallysick, on 06/17/2008, -9/+4Until you install it
    • mctom987, on 06/17/2008, -9/+4You're right, it's worse.
    • TnTBass, on 06/17/2008, -0/+10Digg makes you believe Vista was as bad as Windows ME. Windows ME was by far worse than any other OS ever created. (I don't think I'm exaggerating at all either).

      The problem with Vista is that it is such a huge disappointment. It promised so much, and just kept failing on those promises. If you ignore everything that it promised, and forget the annoyances, its not a bad OS.

      I've been using Vista since Beta. (I love when people quantify the amount of time they use the OS and consider themselves experts on how great or horrible it is, I just wanted to throw my two cents of obviously meaningless quantifications into my comment) It has came a long way since then, but it still has a long way to come.

      Mostly what you hear on Digg is disappointment. We've all been told Vista will lick our ass and tell us it tastes like ice cream, but all it does is suck our dicks, just like XP, and we don't like the new technique.
    • linuxpenguin, on 06/17/2008, -3/+3I think it's funny that people say it's good because of how infrequently it crashes on them (or because it never has). Although I agree that not crashing is a wonderful thing for an operating system, I don't think the fact that a particular OS doesn't crash is something that makes it a good OS. MacOS probably can go quite some time without crashing, too. . .
    • thedragon4453, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2My only problem with Vista is the hardware reqs. I bought a laptop that came with Vista, and as such it runs like a champ.

      However, my p4 with a gig of ram just doesn't run Vista as well as it does XP.

      Vista is far from crap, but I'd like them to work on reducing the specs needed to run it. Ubuntu is quite comparable IMHO, and it runs on significantly lower spec'd hardware.
    • mossblaser, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2I work in a local computer store in the UK, since vista's release we have sold about 10 copies of vista (either on systems or as boxes) and hundreds with XP. We've also "downgraded" more systems than we've installed vista on. While this doesn't specifically say XP is better or vista is worse it does show where the market wants to go...
  • din100, on 06/17/2008, -12/+8798% people don’t know how they come up with this %
    • reisrocks, on 06/17/2008, -3/+21“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.”

      Homer Simpson.
  • Dylson, on 06/17/2008, -17/+11I just don't care enough about linux to take this seriously.
    • picsectionpleez, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3But enough to post a comment? You must be bored. By the way, you MIGHT consider caring about Tux a little bit more!!
    • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2And yet you take Digg seriously enough to use it.



      /Digg is hosted on Debian for those who didn't know
  • BebopBlues, on 06/17/2008, -20/+11to these developers, I use Windows along the majority of computer users in the world. What are you thinking?
    • aweraw, on 06/17/2008, -8/+4"***** THIS!"
    • Zounas, on 06/17/2008, -6/+2The future?
    • cheerybounce, on 06/17/2008, -4/+6I prefer linux, because it is incredibly more feasible and easier to write software for linux than for windows, in the long and short run. Also, it is incredibly easier to get that same software working later.

      Anyway, who do you think majority of those linux-users represent for? They are not comp noobs or consumers - they are prosumers, some of them are best programmers in the world. If you'd have even a half wit, you'd consider what those, often free-time, developers are doing.

      Also, I have my own philosophy, which is contradictory to windows: Working should be rewarded, not copyright holdings. It would result with more efficient money spending and better software (because you'd need to write something new/better to actually earn your money). Very few people actually understand open source. It's a business model of it's own.

      Even thought, this far anything I've been rewarded with from writing software is the enjoyment of doing so. This far it's been enough because I'm doing hacking for a hobby. :-)
      • DarknessGP, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Because it's easier to write software for? I suppose that's a good reason, now you just need to convince business end users that they want to use Linux. The vast majority of people are using some version of windows, because of this most software developers write programs that will work in windows.
  • lamiaconfitor, on 06/17/2008, -13/+2mu ha ha! nice.
  • ihate2regist, on 06/17/2008, -12/+4developers developers developers?
  • allenwrench, on 06/17/2008, -8/+45Nobody "targets Vista", they "target Windows". Among Windows flavors Vista pulled in 8% and XP 49%. I was impressed until I saw the figure for XP.
    • Ravatar, on 06/17/2008, -3/+13Exactly, apps written (properly) in .net will work for XP/Vista/2003/2008 (and Windows 2000/98/ME if you use .net 2.0) 32-bit and 64-bit out of the box. Not sure what the hell they're referring to when they say "targeting Vista".
    • jabberwolf, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1It's more Digg noobs trying to get attention for themselves because they use OSX or linux and feel somehow neglected.
      But who cares about facts and actual comparisons.
      This is Digg, dont bother them with things like facts.
  • Dotnetsky, on 06/17/2008, -13/+25This came out of a very poorly designed survey by Evans Data, which was immediately picked up on by C-NET and others who are so hungry to find anything that they can try to make newsworthy that they don't even bother to do any fact-checking. Typical anti-Microsoft FUD.
    • happyrex, on 06/17/2008, -5/+8Oh come on. They must be deserving of at least some FUD after thirty years of spewing it out.
    • dragoninsane, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1btw cnet is lover of ms.thats why it doesnt support linux based software to download on download.com.check there reviews all all about ms.
    • Rocco03, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2I've seen the acronym FUD used by so many linux fanboys that I didn't know Microsoft supporters were allowed to use it.
  • vinnyvenus, on 06/17/2008, -18/+21A fair comparison would be a specific Linux distro (like Redhat) to Windows Vista.
    • aldableep3, on 06/17/2008, -2/+11you're right.. comparing a specific version of windows to the broad category of linux is retarded
  • aliguana, on 06/17/2008, -4/+16you have to write cross-platform software these days. Windows, Linux, OSX. Or at least leave the framework open enough that someone else could port it easily. Even in the business world, where people develop for Windows environments, there will come a time when the department head decides to go open-source (re French Police etc) and then you're screwed unless you can easily port your systems over.
    • Zounas, on 06/17/2008, -2/+2Indeed. I see it quite interesting that many OSS projects from Linux are ported to Windows (Gimp and Firefox for example) but it's rare to see it other way around.
      • mrBitch, on 06/17/2008, -3/+5RE : " rare to see it other way around " (porting Windows apps to Linux).
        True, it is not a simple task to port a Windows app to a *nix based OS platform (Linux or OS X).

        But it looks like Valve is porting their games to Linux :
        eg.

        Valve : Senior Software Engineer Job Description :
        " Responsibilities : Port Windows-based games to the Linux platform."
        http://www.valvesoftware.com/job-SenSoftEngineer.h ...
    • SacraBos, on 06/17/2008, -2/+3Take a look at wxWidgets as a GUI framework. It's portable, but uses native widgets so it looks more like it was developed on the platform than ported. I've used GTK on Windows, and it looks... not quite right there (works, though).

      As for porting OSS to Windows more common than Windows to OSS - Many Windows products are proprietary or already have an OSS solution (why port when you can use something already coded). Gimp and Firefox are great examples, since there's no free Windows counterpart - so you HAVE to port to Windows or write it completely from scratch. I'll take porting for $200 Alex...
  • chris9902, on 06/17/2008, -9/+20wtf is this garbage? I laugh about most of the crap posted on digg but this is beyond stupid.

    • Jrayk, on 06/17/2008, -4/+383% of statistics are made up on the spot.

      Like ^that^ one.
  • pinchduck, on 06/17/2008, -7/+12I just develop for the web. I'm getting my new Thinkpad today with Linux installed, though, so I would count myself in the "Linux Developer" camp.
  • warbird, on 06/17/2008, -7/+3Most people commenting on how stupid this is, but still its on the front page :/ I agree, its totally stupid. If they compare like that, they should rather pick one spesific version of linux too... Again, stupid!
    • dragoninsane, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1hey typo!are u picking ur choice of win box with added bloatware? sorry adware,malware,virus-ware,spam-ware?
  • Jamminn, on 06/17/2008, -10/+28** mumbles something good about Visual Studio and walks away **
    • ultrafez, on 06/17/2008, -4/+20I would have to agree with your mumble there, I like Visual Studio too...
      • Ravatar, on 06/17/2008, -2/+19Visual Studio 2008 was terribly slow before that hotfix. But I'll agree, Visual Studio kicks the hell out of most (if not every) other IDE.
      • thedarkwolf, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3Maybe Its just me, but VS could be much better. I keep running into little things that don't work the way they should, like I install a package but VS still will not recognize the new project type.

        I suppose I do a lot of customization, but I was rather disappointed with how well it was able to handle what I wanted to do.

        Plus it eats memory like nothing else. I have 4 Gigs of RAM but my computer will still freeze sometimes when VS wants to load a solution or start building.
    • MattFromSeattle, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Visual Studio is the bomb.
  • DroppedGT, on 06/17/2008, -8/+1I didn't read it, I read the comments though.
  • ButchersBoy, on 06/17/2008, -13/+31I just got a new PC with Vista Ultimate. I like it.
  • seedplanter, on 06/17/2008, -13/+3I like XP-Pro. . . . It is simple!
  • ahhell, on 06/17/2008, -11/+6It's too early for this bull *****.
    Buried.
    • dragoninsane, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1arn't you ready for another ms Trail.win 7
  • raptordrew, on 06/17/2008, -2/+6Why would people program just for Vista? A majority of stuff programmed for XP will work in Vista fine, so probably most make it for XP and add any Vista stuff that's needed into it for the 1% of compatibility issues.
  • reisrocks, on 06/17/2008, -1/+15Our code compiles and runs on linux.. In fact I'm one of the few developers working in Ubuntu.

    But our target platform is still... Windows.
    • mossblaser, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Thats fine, target the market not your personal ideals. Having code that works on linux can only be good for business - more platforms = more customers = more money!
      • reisrocks, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Yeah to be honest we do it for the code to be more portable.. even if it means rewriting entire classes because of windows / linux differences.. i.e Threading or system classes.

        It does feel safer and more reliable when you can compile the same code in various compilers.
  • DestroyFascism, on 06/17/2008, -13/+2Um really slow website...
    Bad CMS? Pay too much?

    www.joomla.org/
    http://drupal.org/
    http://mambo-foundation.org
  • Zemnexx, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Thats great...*yawn*
  • RomanThommassen, on 06/17/2008, -13/+10huh why would they code for a bad game as linux?
  • t4m5t3r, on 06/17/2008, -12/+6this is good news, we need atleast one game developer to start making linux games, that would open the flood gates, and then we're getting there,

    however its blatantly obvious developers arent wasting time and money on vista because they know its dead, same way they probably didnt do much development for Windows ME, their just not allowed to say that, i work for a major PC manufacturer, we HAD the option to upgrade our systems, we dont anymore, we also have had NO TRAINING on vista, other than the RC2 version when it was still beta, thats all the training we've had, which means they KNOW we wont ever be supporting it!! (and let face even M$ know its dead, thats why their trying to hype Windows 7)

    (also a windows Vista CD key will work with any XP OEM CD and it will activate as a genuine key, as it is a genuine key, (this was because of the VAST amount of people DEMANDING XP over vista , when vista came pre installed, this happened for the first and only few weeks we where vista only))
    • mrBitch, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2RE : " we need at least one game developer to start ... "

      ... is Valve good enough for you?
      "Valve is looking for a Senior Software Engineer. That's nothing new. What is interesting is this bit under "Responsibilities" section : "Port Windows-based games to the Linux platform."

      http://digg.com/linux_unix/Valve_Looking_for_Progr ...
  • Lionhart, on 06/17/2008, -0/+8Please tell me I'm not the only one that realizes how hardcore this site rips off of Ars Technica.
  • Shadowgamers, on 06/17/2008, -7/+8"49 percent are still writing for Windows XP"
    "13 percent are programming for Linux"

    Is it me or does it seem that Microsoft aren't losing their steam? V:
    • tripzero, on 06/17/2008, -0/+149 percent are still writing apps for an OS that is about to be discontinued?

      The point is that people aren't attracted to vista, they see no compelling reason to upgrade and so what would be the point in writing apps that are vista specific? I'm sure there are plenty of good features that coders would want, but the market isn't there.

  • neko6, on 06/17/2008, -3/+7Targeting an OS that came out a few months ago is commercial suicide.
    I wrote a project on Java 1.5 when it was out for over 3 years and Java 1.6 was already out (I figured targeting one version back would be smart), and lost ~80% of my potential in-department users because our IT people haven't bothered updating Java since version 1.4.2.
    • thedarkwolf, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3sad because its so true. The java part really bugs me sometimes. I had to develop in 1.4.x for a while, well after 1.6 was released because thats what the rest of the department was running.

      I think what really bugs me is that there is no disadvantage to upgrading the JRE because its completely backwards compatible.
    • linuxpenguin, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3Vista's been out for over a year now. You're right, but I think what they're getting at is that some developers would rather just write for Linux than write for Vista. Writing for the newest version of a system might be a bad idea, but in this case they're writing software for a far less familiar system - as in, they'd rather learn the Linux way than put up with Vista's quirks and still use some of the APIs and such that they're familiar with already.
  • Farmer77, on 06/17/2008, -11/+3This is truly the year of Linux.
  • tk0680, on 06/17/2008, -0/+11Gotta love articles that still suggest that Vista "may not be catching on" as if they expect widespread gasping and fainting from their readers.
    • B1663r, on 06/17/2008, -4/+9If you were an analyst, say about two years ago, that used magical thinking to predict the failure of Vista, and that OSX and Linux were going to somehow replace windows, your career is now tainted. Now that it is crystal clear that Vista is not the disaster they said it was, and consumers have found a seamless transition to 64bit computing I think they have a bit of egg on their face.

      They are like the Bushies of the early 00's, they have to admit that they have a problem before things can get better.

      And like it or not, even the haters have to admit, after nearly 2 years of the most sustained FUD campaign ever leveled against any company, in the entire history of business, they have only been able to erode (not really eroded, more of a slowed their growth a little bit) Microsoft's marketshare by 2% makes me more confident than ever that Microsoft continues to be the best company to go with if you want future proof products.
    • tk0680, on 06/17/2008, -3/+3By the standards of a company with the market dominance and financial resources of Microsoft, Vista has been a disaster (thus far, at least). The fact that people are not just apathetic about upgrading but in many cases actively refusing to speaks volumes.

      Vista would have had to have been a rootkit that squeezed into a floppy disk to actually cause Windows to be replaced in one knockout blow, but there's no real denying that Windows took a punch to the face as a brand. OSX and Linux are gaining, and not just on their own merit.
  • l815, on 06/17/2008, -5/+11This is stupid. Vista is great, Linux is great. Most the open source apps I can't live without work on Vista + Linux, which means there is no "target" OS that I can see. They may favor one OS, but any serious application would most likely be written cross-platform if written for Linux specifically. That's why the Open Source community is so great.

    Stop ragging on Vista
    Stop ragging on Linux

    I don't care about apple :P (no offense, I just don't agree with the monopoly that is worse than Microsoft's)
    • roflbrothel, on 06/17/2008, -9/+3Vista sucks.

      XP is sort of ok.

      Apple is better than Microsoft in terms of not being a dick and UI.

      Linux is great.

      /thread
  • hellsing47, on 06/17/2008, -8/+5Go to a college campus and ask kids what they think of vista.

    "its dumb"
    • B1663r, on 06/17/2008, -5/+10Oh, a college campus, where stupid people go to try and rectify their situation. Gottcha. Well at least they are trying....
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 06/17/2008, -2/+8College users sit behind their campus firewall with their laptops and have no idea the security threats that face them. Go and ask a business user about the improved security updates and he/she might disagree with you.
  • Zoltair, on 06/17/2008, -4/+11yeah right....... HAHAHAHA
    I've had FAR fewer problems getting Vista to work on my systems then Linux/UBuntu, 3 days and still working on getting Ubuntu to work right. 1Hr, Vista up and running, no problems, and no cryptic undocumented hack to or edits to some obscure .conf file just to get it to boot. I use both Windows based systems and Linux based system, and there is no doubt Linux is FAR more challenging to get working. So far Vista has been flawless in my applications.

    • mGARANDEUR1, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6That is probably the reason that most businesses are still running Windows instead of Linux.
    • Zoltair, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3Just tried KUBuntu...... Low and behold, it doesn't recognize my mouse without some textual shenanigans. Even then I had to google the help from another PC (running Vista) to determine the mysterious entries to fix. Once done and booted, boom, crash log...... Network utility finds network fine, but system still refused to acknowledge network connected... after 3.5 hours of f&*king around with KUBuntu to load and install, dumped it.... Bottom line, if developers are developing for that platform, boy are they in trouble.....
      • specialK16, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Well it is true, Linux will be more of a challenge than simply installing Windows, in SOME cases. But you are not like me, if you were like me you would be thinking "Hey, I learned something new today".
    • manacit2, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2Same here, I ended up giving up on ubuntu and installing Vista again, Linux is still a pain in the ass to set up.
    • dave122, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1I had the opposite problem, I decided to upgrade the OS's on both my laptop (ubuntu) and desktop (xp->vista) one night, had ubuntu up and going in maybe 45 minutes, took me 9 hours to get vista working properly, it ended up being something on my motherboard that vista wasn't too happy about, with newer hardware it probably wouldn't have been a problem.
  • jond, on 06/17/2008, -13/+6Linux is such a joke. It's okay for webservers and geeks with no lives, but give me a break. For $200 you can have an OS that works and does require you spending your saturdays fixing random crap.

    • waspbr, on 06/17/2008, -2/+9spoken like a true sheeple, if you don't want to use linux, fine no one will force you but get your facts straight. Linux is just an alternative, cheap and reliable, though if you wanna throw you money away fine by me. After installing and setting up linux machines pretty much run on their own, no fixing required. I've installed ubuntu on my mom' s computer, and unless she's become a geek (which a find to be a little unlikely), her computer just runs and it has been months since I had to touch anything in it.

      though I agree that the article is complete FUD, though I prefer linux, I am not a windows hater, I still dual boot with my trusty XP copy, but Linux is not the joke here buddy, you are.
      • mGARANDEUR1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and I'm guessing your mom only really uses her computer for email. I'm also guessing that she doesn't have a whole lot of programs that she needs.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 06/17/2008, -5/+3I would agree and also add that $200 is far cheaper than the time it would take most people to get linux working properly. It seems that linux users don't understand that in this world time is money.
      • raada, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4To get for example Ubuntu Live Linux to work properly, you just put in the CD and boot. Don't even need to partition your hard drive or anything. It is far easier than all the hassle with installing Windows. Oh yeah, Windows you HAVE TO install otherwise it wont run.
        • dkitch, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Yeah, but most businesses install. And then spend 30 minutes trying to make your mouse work, and 45 minutes trying to figure out why it's not playing nice with your network card. In the business world, for every computer issue, you lose 2 salaries...the employee affected, and the tech support guy trying to fix it. An hour and 15 minutes, times two, 2:30. Times $30 an hour (conservative estimate), and that's $80 in just salaries gone not even including the true value of what the employee produces for the company. A couple issues like this (installing certain apps can be fun), and the cost of an XP or Vista license is more than justified from a business case perspective
        • weeble, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2@dkitch.... spoken like someone who has never tried Linux. Pop in a Linux disk from any current mainstream Linux distro, and everything will work.. Your mouse WILL work. Your network card WILL work.

          Sigh.. whatever... I don't care anymore.. people will follow along like mindless sheep and bleat mine is bigger/better than yours over and over...
        • mGARANDEUR1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and you will have some serious lag from the OS reading from the cd. Running linux from the cd is much slower than any windows operating system.
      • thedarkwolf, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1I set up Ubuntu Linux for the first time a few months ago (not counting a pre-configured SUSE iso) and had very few problems. Ok, I spent a few hours struggling with the screen resolution and some minor stuff, but by the end of the day I had my Linux box up, running deny-hosts, apache, mysql, php, and zend and was fully ready for web development (which was the reason I installed in the first place).

        I have done the same configuring on a MS platform. Getting the environment configured to run WAMP is not really so much fun. PHPMyAdmin install on windows is like pulling needles through my skin.

        Plus, Linux is more reliable IMO, don't need to do as much to maintain the webserver, etc. If time is money, I say Linux is the way to go.
        • mGARANDEUR1, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1When i used SuSE linux it would work about %30 of the time. Oh yeah, I also had problem when it just refused to boot one day. NIIICCCCEEE. It was the most unreliable computer I've ever used.
    • Zounas, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5Funny coincidence, I spent yesterday hours trying to update my firewall by rebooting, uninstalling and reinstalling. It kept freezing my Windows, probably because of some random inconsinstency. In the end I had to change to another product. In Linux you you would have firewall preinstalled and updated automatically.

      I'm getting tired of 'fixing random crap' so I'm gonna test some Linux distros (I've had OpenSUSE next to XP very much unused). I have grown into Windows world so it takes time to get used to Linux.

      (Windows fanboys will digg this down, it's inevitable truth.)
      • zakatov, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2"It kept freezing my Windows"?
        That's a line you read in some joke about a retarded tech support line caller.
        The rest of your post sounds like that too.
        • Zounas, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1How else should I call the situation where I see the desktop after the boot but can't do anything?
    • cheerybounce, on 06/17/2008, -0/+4jond: like you'd be able to fix anything else but crap.

      Face it, if windows break, you aren't able to 'magically' get it up back again yourself, unless you are tech-guy. Same thing with linux, the helpers just can be found from other direction than with windows. (oh, and you'll need them less, unless you don't know how to use your new system and are unable to find it out yourself.)

      What comes to getting linux installed. It's just few hours, from which most of time you won't need to sit along the computer. After the base install is successful, you just need to apt-get all software you are using, pull few old config files from your last linux installation, or write them (which will take some time), then your linux system is ready for use. Only thing you need to write configs second time, is when the program has changed significantly, which happens very rarely.

      With windows, it's just few hours too for getting it installed up, but then you have to go through all the stupid next-buttons, while waiting in the middle when windows starts installing stuff in middle of asking base-config. After that you'll yet need to install all the software you will need, and configure them (yourself), because windows has not centralized config that wouldn't become cluttered. Because every software has the old install-wizard and you have gazillion of software you'll need (and programs are bypassing their own copy-protections -adds time because those algorithms are generally complicated and none of them works), you are going to spend three days in front of your computer, pushing next-button repeatedly every fifteen minutes and restarting your computer repeatedly because installation software wants to do so.
  • ozziek, on 06/17/2008, -10/+5Shouldn't that title start "13% of developers are cheap and picking Linux"

    Linux Fanboys READY!
    Windows Fanboys READY!
    Gladiators READY!

    Let battle commence ;)
    • rusty2226, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1lol, Well it's true that there are major Fanboys on both sides. (Can't stand arguing with them on either side.)

      But I can't say to much about this article because I develop for Windows and Ubuntu. (Apple on the other hand....NO.....JUST NO.....) And Vista is ok It does things right but not for me.

      I say once games for Linux come out most of the flaming wars will end. Hopefully
      • ozziek, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Yep Vista is fine and like everyone is saying, no-one targets it specifically. Why bother when you can target Win2k, XP and Vista (with .NET 2.0 anyway, 3.5 won't work on 2000).
    • CCmachined, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Linux is Cheap? *guffaw*
      Free and Freedom != Cheap

      if Linux were to take the place of Windows everywhere right now universally with 100% support, it would kick ass. the problem is its happening slowly.

      /end rant
      • ozziek, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1Doubt we'll see it with multiple distros and no consistancy. A single Linux distro with 100% support - that's a different story

        "it's a long shot but it might just work"
    • MattFromSeattle, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Don't forget about us Mac Fanboys, you know we gotta get a piece too!
  • InorganicMatter, on 06/17/2008, -5/+9Well duh, developers aren't buying this "write exclusively for Windows" crap anymore. A developer wants to sell as much software as possible, does he:
    a) Write it in VB.NET and sell it only to Microsoft users.
    or
    b) Write it in C, then compile and sell it to every platform out there.
    Real tough choice here.
    • peorth, on 06/17/2008, -2/+2That's plain stupid. Have you heard about MONO?
    • Matt2k, on 06/17/2008, -0/+3> b) Write it in C, then compile and sell it to every platform out there

      Is that how it's done? Fascinating!
    • dave122, on 06/17/2008, -0/+2I just write stuff for the web, then I only have to worry about my servers, it doesn't matter what the hell anyone else is using. Everything we've built in the last 2 years (enterprise accounting, etc..) has all been web based. Makes it so much easier to manage and deploy.
    • mfearby, on 06/18/2008, -0/+2Or... c) write it in pure Java/Swing and have it work anywhere Java will work -i.e., Windows, Mac, Linux, Unix and possibly some other bizarre OSes. Writing C code that compiles and works on every platform out there isn't exactly a walk in the park. In fact, I would say it's probably a nightmare.
  • OSuX, on 06/17/2008, -5/+2Vista is very developer friendly. It's just picky about its friends!
  • raada, on 06/17/2008, -3/+6Got a new laptop with Vista installed. Excited. Until I tried to use it.... It was slower than my old laptop which runs XP... (even though the hardware is faster on the new one). Visual Studio 6 is not supported. VPN does not work. A lot of programs I use do not run on Vista...
    I had to reinstall and use XP instead.
    Vista looks a like a crappy version of MacOS X but it is slow and laggy. And your old software doesnt work... Great upgrade.
    Vista is developer-friendly?? Maybe they should make sure their own developer tools works first then...
    • asmith1243, on 06/17/2008, -2/+1specs please? my machine isnt even top of the line and its running vista flawlessly.
    • Audobahn, on 06/17/2008, -1/+2Sorry to say, but Upgrade to real version of Visual Studio?
      You do know that they are on version 9 (2008)
    • mdman, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1You bought a sub standard machine if it cant run vista...
  • sremick, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5Or, instead of targeting "Linux" they could simply write generically for UNIX-like OSes running X.org which would make a lot more sense and broaden their consumer base.
  • Screwy1138, on 06/17/2008, -3/+3I'm impressed about Vista. 8% is a hell of a lot for a specific OS, particularly a new one. If they're specifically targeting Vista instead of just Windows or .Net it means they're doing some pretty cool things. 8% is impressive.
    • estvir, on 06/17/2008, -4/+3Exactly, if you think about it (Like no one on here nor that site did), it's impressive. Linux which is however many hundred distributions with however many companies is only 13% while Vista which is < 2 years old is 8%.

      I love it when people try to spread FUD about MS yet it's actually shows good things.
    • linuxpenguin, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3For most people (developers included) Linux is a new OS, so that doesn't explain why there are more developers writing for Linux than Vista - switching to Linux requires them to completely re-learn many things as they don't have the APIs and other tools that they had in Windows.
  • WTFppl, on 06/17/2008, -3/+8I've been far more impressed by Debian with KDE when compared to Vista!
  • FKnight, on 06/17/2008, -2/+5I don't "target Vista" with my applications. I do this thing called "writing them properly" and ::gasp!:: they work with every version of Windows.

    Just in case anyone hasn't been around for, oh, the last decade, all of those software companies that are making billions of dollars hand over fist ... yeah, they're targeting "Windows."

  • tarunrs, on 06/17/2008, -1/+391% of statistics are made up on the spot.
  • CCmachined, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3i really think governments should encourage Linux somehow, even if only inside government establishments and in public areas (libraries, schools, etc.) this anti-competitive monopolistic BS cannot be allowed to go on, and continue reaping billions of dollars.
  • BradBrown, on 06/17/2008, -3/+4And the percentage of Linux developers getting paid is...?
    • UKsHaDoW, on 06/17/2008, -0/+6The majority.
      • netferret, on 06/18/2008, -0/+1I doubt that, the only way they make money is mainly from support or specialised versions of linux

        It would be stupid a developer to limit their market to linux users anyway, there's lots more money to be made from windows.
        • UKsHaDoW, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Err no, there was a article saying 70% of Linux Kernel Developers are actually paid by Linux companies such as IBM and Red Hat.
        • netferret, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Er yes there is a lot more money to be made by windows developers as the market is substantially larger and as above I stated "specialised versions of linux"
  • joeanon, on 06/17/2008, -12/+2Oh please you fools. MS's market share is solid and Linux market share is simply not gaining significantly.

    It's not about the number of developers. It's about the funding and WHAT the are developing.

    Developers writing network and server code simply aren't drawling new users to Linux.

    Look at Mac. You don't need TONS of developers, you just need focuses ones. FOCUS on the end users needs.

    For now, Linux needs to GROW UP and stop trying to be a desktop for the masses. It's NEVER going to happen while the drivers and 3D gaming is so weak. People PAY for the hardware and therefore they want the most out of it.

    Security and stability simple aren't salable points to end users compared to games and cool looking cases :P

    Linux has the marketing of the special Olympics. Some day it has to grow up and grasp the reality that it's just another product on the market and it needs a business model.

    .NET is the collect thing going on for developers right now and XNA while still new has a lot of people behind it.

    What does Linux have.... people angry enough to switch to a less profitable platform... or people going to Linux to avoid the competition of Windows developers who have more rapid application tools at their disposal.

    There is just nothing there to actually draw people to Linux beyond.. hey we're not Microsoft.

    That being the case, you can see why MAC is easily eating up what should have been Linux's market share increase. Mac builds FOR end users, not for open source nerds. Open source nerds aren't a profitable demographics. In the end... Linux must profit or go the way of the Amiga. As a server it does great and as a limited workstation, but for random desktop uses it's vastly inferior to Mac or Windows.

    You can dream all you want, but the sales numbers show whats not happen. Linux is NOT breaking into the desktop world. It's getting funding, but people just aren't BUYING.

    And.. why would they. Unless your a security expert or a programmer Linux will offer you nothing but hassle compared to Windows. The drivers commonly sucks, the wireless sucks, most of the best apps are windows apps running through WINE, the office suite sucks. Really the only thing that's brining people to Linux is Firefox as a familiar face.

    An OS is like mathematics. it's a building block process. Linux is several years behind Mac and Windows and it just makes no sense to throw away advancement to diversity to more OS"s when there is no real needs for having all these competing and non-standardized desktop OS's.

    If they all ran the same software... SURE, but otherwise it's a huge waste of developers time to keep re-witting drivers, utilities, games... and lets face it.. java doesn't solve the problem.

    You're idiots to not realize that PROFIT built the PC industry and it's WHY Nvidia and ATI can produce chips that outperform super computers of 10 years ago.

    MS isn't asking a lot from home users. It's businesses that pay the brunt of their profit margins. If you take that money out of the PC industry.. it's just gone. Keep in mind MS brought you the open hardware and open software market of today. Apple would never have done that.

    It takes profit to stay on top, to keep hardware makers focuses, to prod software developers.

    Companies selling Linux just don't have that type of influence. They are merely selling an application, they are not pushing the PC industry. It takes huge amounts of money and influence to direct a market and to make hardware makers stop fighting over idiotic standards as a means of locking each other out of the market.

    Without the 60 billion dollar giant, this market would be a fraction of what it is today. It would be even less organized, even less standardized and hardware would simply not be as advanced.

    Sorry, but that's the REALITY of business. Money drives innovation and over diversification doesn't help anything it just creates overlapping technology.

    The REAL solution is simple. Instead of pretending you'll ever beat MS in the business world. You USE YOUR DEMOCRACY to have their APIs opened. Then, you don't just give up years of development and you don't push profit out for some low cost community OS.

    As the industry gets more and more complex open source is simply not going to scale.

    Look at game development... open source has no real place there. Artists and game designers need to get paid for their work not rely on after the fact donations.

    Games are the pinnacle of complex applications made at a blistering pace. They represent what open source will not achieve and the basic failure of such a model.

    Just like piracy, open source ultimately provides you with what you need, but at the same time kill innovation in most cases. At first.. it helps, but as you erode the profits of the competition you are basically using unfair business tactics to put for profit out of businesses.

    If your OS was a commodity, that would be illegal to DUMP your product at low cost and put the competition out of business.

    There is no valid argument that Windows costs too much. It's like 150 bucks for a application you'll use EVERYDAY for the next 3-5 year or more. That's DIRT CHEAP.

    Linux users are among the hardest crowd to get to pay for software.

    Instead of measuring developers on the platform.. you should measure PROFIT. The all mighty determiner of success. Developing is meaningless unless you product sells especially when comparing it to a for profit platform.

    You may think Linux can make the switch to for profit, but NO WAY. Linux user will never want to pay for their applications it has become one of the unfortunate side effects of open source.... the constant demand for free software.

    Just like pirating music or video doing so will lower the quality of your programmers. Just like stealing music lowers the quality of your musicians and makes record companies BANK on known successes rather than new artists.

    Plus as the platform diversity and go mobile... Linux has nothing.. it's slow as hell to update to new hardware which is going to become more and more common. We are STILL waiting for wireless utilities to work right on Linux. Linux HAS to come bundled will fully functional drivers, not open source crap and it HAS to get rid of the package manager to ever have a hope of being a desktop OS.

    I've been waiting for Linux to be valid desktop OS since it came out, since I was installing slackware from floppy disks using rawrite.

    Unlike the Linux fanboys.. I just hoped for a Windows alternative, I didn't brainwash myself and change my computing habits to fit Linux. The OS is just not impressive, from performance to interface there is just nothing there to make a common windows user switch.

    The ONLY thing I truly find useful is the security and the pre-configured distros such as for music recording or penetration testing. BUT, that's Linux doing what it does best. working like an appliance, not a desktop OS.

    Linux at least needs 3d gaming and wireless support that works to even consider itself a desktop OS. Even old people want 3d games now days. There is less and less of a market for an OS that can just surf and do word processing. Linux has met the needs of desktop users from 10 years ago, not today.

    Given their opportunity with Vista.. what did they do.... pumped out a 3d cube desktop. How ***** useless is that people ? I was on Linux for 3 months about a year ago and it did have good disk performance, but it actually downloaded slight slower than Vista, the package manager corrupted itself, the PDF viewer sucks, the torrent programs were primitive, file associations only half worked, the control panel was designed by a moron, my graphics card drivers wouldn't install via the package manger, I had to hunt down up to date packages, I even had to go to command line to install flash, file sharing was a giant pain in the ass, most of the programs people recommend were Windows programs running in wine, AND the DVD burning software lagged and crashed X Windows with ease.

    That's the reality of Linux. It may run well on your hardware, but it's just not really tested for mass distribution and with the money they have.. it never will be.

    I'm certainly not going to buy hardware to meet my OS's needs. That's ridiculous especially for a desktop OS.



    • UKsHaDoW, on 06/17/2008, -1/+6You do know Linux is supported by companies Like IBM, Red Hat, Oracle , Novell.

      IBM is the biggest I.T Employer, yes bigger than Microsoft.

      So money is not the problem.

      And no normal people don't want fancy gamer cases, or pc games. Most normal people play console games. And pc gaming cases look *****, attracting nerds who have no decent style.

    • flibuste, on 06/17/2008, -1/+7You are wrong on so many levels, your post becomes funny after a while.

      From DVD burning to games being the "pinnacle of complex applications", going through the "reality of Linux", you're accumulating mistakes and innacuracies.

      The reality is far different from your perception. However it's very real that you seem to know about profit margins, and nothing about softwares and operating systems.

      Please do not try to confuse people.
    • daftman, on 06/17/2008, -1/+5Bravo!! I commend you sir.
      You have the courage to show the world how dumb you are as you try to show off your misinformed knowledge.
      Most dumb people keep their mouth shut in the event they might learn something. You didn't.
      I don't think anyone here would have the patience to explain to you point by point how wrong you are. Most, like myself, would just let an idiot stay as an idiot.

    • pagno, on 06/17/2008, -3/+1I have to agree, somewhat. Ive been a long time Slack user(since 3.0), and unless you know what youre doing, your Linux experience will suck. Ubuntu is the worst one Ive used, and its marketed as a "Windows Killer", in a sense. Wireless, graphics, sound, none of them worked, even after tinkering with configs, Ubuntu(all versions) didnt work. Some suggested I need a new computer, which is just stupid when XP runs flawless on the same hardware. Pointless. You are wrong, however. OpenOffice.org doesnt suck.
    • Snooball, on 06/17/2008, -3/+3> I'm certainly not going to buy hardware to meet my OS's needs.
      > That's ridiculous especially for a desktop OS.

      And how exactly is this any different from Vista!?
    • specialK16, on 06/17/2008, -1/+3Of all the big long wall of crap you just wrote, penetration testing was the only thing that caught my attention..... :'

      Seriously though, you are clueless.....
    • MCee, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Forcing Microsoft to open the API will never happen. There is a good reason for this. There would no longer be any reason for people to stick with Windows, save for the fact that their hardware wouldn't work up to snuff. I know people who are just waiting for games to catch up with Linux (Steam is coming to linux, if the rumours are right. Right?).

      Which is another thing. You cannot bitch about how drivers don't work, and how you couldn't get such and such to work, when the companies don't supply proper drivers. If it works on Linux, it usually means someone took the god damn time to make it work as best as they could, without necessarily having specifics. If you want stuff to work with linux, buy stuff that is known to work with linux.

      And another thing. For the most part, people get their computer pre-installed with Windows, be it XP or Vista. Then you complain that Ubuntu or some other distro doesn't work exactly as well as it does with Windows. Well no *****. Macs are built to run OS X, Windows boxes are built to (Some laptops that come with Vista just don't have the power tho...) run Windows, and Linux boxes (and yeah, there is more than just ASUS and Dell, btw) are built to run Linux.

      Now, I don't hate windows, but I don't see what's so wrong with linux. I have installed Ubuntu on machines, and I have installed XP on machines. Personally, Ubuntu gave me the easier time. Installed it, set up some minor stuff, like getting the Nvidia restricted driver, and was done. Came with all the stuff I needed to surf, chat, even came with a decent office suite. Installed XP on a computer, had to figure out what the drivers were, go on another working computer, download them, try and install them. Some drivers even blue screened the damn thing. Took me about two days to get it to work right. So, personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Some people love it, some people hate it. As long as there is some good competition, the consumers really win in the end.
  • LastDitchHero, on 06/17/2008, -0/+5While I feel the survey is flawed, platforms like Mono means if it works under Linux you can port it to Windows (even use .NET), and Mac. So in theory you could have a Windows form application (or WPF) version for Windows, a Cocoa# for Mac, and a GTK# for Linux so you have the native look and feel for each platform. Also GTK# is available for Windows, Mac and Linux if you wished to maintain the look and feel between all platforms. Just food for thought.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.