Survey: Linux will almost double in apps developers next year

[madjr]

windows only developers are taking interest in linux.



Stymied by a lack of user interest in Microsoft Vista , many North American developers are still not targeting the new operating system when writing new applications, according to a survey released last week. The survey did find some growth in Vista development will come in 2009.

Only 8 percent of 380 developers surveyed by Evans Data Corp. in April are writing applications for Vista, while 49 percent are still writing applications for primarily for the predecessor Windows version , XP. In addition, 11 percent said are applications mostly for Microsoft Office 2003, while 9 percent are focused on Linux-based apps.

[...]

The survey also found that 29 percent of the developers surveyed will primarily target XP next year, with 24 percent targeting Vista. Overall, 67 percent of developers will primarily target a Windows version while 15 percent write applications for Linux.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/145888/developers_prefer_xp_over_vista_survey_shows.html


from 9 to 15% in just a year's time :)

also, some developers might skip Vista completely and pay attention to windows 7 (if it's not a mess by release once again)

Ballmer: "Developers, developrs, dvelps!"

[days_of_ruin]

Great news!I think the fact that ubuntu is getting so much press is helping
that trend:D

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I think the problem Windows is coming to face is that its ecosystem is built around closed source "pay to use" applications. At the same time, we are seeing that legacy software is doomed on the Windows platform, while Linux operating systems remain quite happy with practically ancient software running as it did a decade ago even though supported by entirely different people than its original developers.

Granted, Windows' legacy software problem is largely because of the incredible number of incompetent hacks who can't seem to build software in the correct manner (instead opting to hard code things like the My Documents path), but it still undoubtedly turns heads towards the one area without that problem: Open source. There are many ways to make money off open source software, and I think the obvious advantage for software lifetime is making it a very visible alternative.
I don't think open source can really thrive on Windows, just as closed source won't thrive on Linux, so the path is rather clear.

[Methuselah]

Vista was such a wake up call in so many quarters.
I think microsoft has just started creeping past that point where the market is hitting back. Vista has disrupted their own scheme because it breaks compatibility with so many legacy applications. So people are asking, why not just move to linux since we'll have to make an extensive migration in either case.

[Mateo]

i think Vista is better than XP personally.

[SunnyRabbiera]

i think Vista is better than XP personally.

In what way?
Really it offers nothing over XP, its UAC is a joke, its got more bloat then a sperm whale and its DRM is close to insanity.

[Mateo]

In what way?
Really it offers nothing over XP, its UAC is a joke, its got more bloat then a sperm whale and its DRM is close to insanity.

Several ways, IMO. First, the user directory is finally sensible. Instead of "C:\Document and Settings\USER\My Documents", it's just "C:\Users\USER". Secondly, the start menu navigation is more cleanly done.

The flaws of Vista seem to be the same as the flaws in XP. Too many needlessly running applications in the background, and ones that make it extremely hard to turn off permanently. The UAC is definitely annoying, but I have no doubt that it's more secure than the XP methods.

[SunnyRabbiera]

well yes its good that vista has decided to do a more unix like firesystem, but still vista is a bloated slug in comparison to XP.
2000 was better then both of them for sure, but I still like XP more then vista.

[Mateo]

It does use more system resources, yes. But Gnome also uses more system resources than Fluxbox. This doesn't mean Fluxbox is better than Gnome, it just means that it can run on more systems. Using a system that is capable of running Vista efficiently, I don't see how XP can be considered better. How?

[Methuselah]

Using a system that is capable of running Vista efficiently, I don't see how XP can be considered better.


That is a key caveat. Since machines capable or running Vista well are rather high-end Xp WILL be the better for many.

Besides, the job of an OS is NOT to eat up all of a machine's resources. It's quite the opposite actually. It's supposed to efficiently make resources available to productive application programs.

Add to this some compatibility issues with existing hardware and software (in a closed source culture where programs cannot easily be ported) and you get why people don't like Vista.

[frup]

Vista is ugly from a freedom point of view (eg DRM)
It is ugly from a cost point of view ($$ and cost of required hardware)

Most consider it visually nice it seems (some claim to detest it) I don't like the folder Icons and I don't like the start menu... it makes things harder to use. I generally feel bad when using windows systems though, Linux is the only thing I can bare to use now.

This might be a familiarity thing though as I feel bad when using KDE instead of Gnome (I don't dislike KDE I just prefer Gnome)

More apps for linux is great. Cross platform apps are the way to go I believe. I would really like so see a huge success story of a closed source program that becomes open and gets success... I guess we have blender though.

If you look at 6.06 and 8.04 and the improvement in technology and then compare XP to Vista and Tiger or older to Leopard there is the key factor in which one has improved the most... Ubuntu obviously (and all linux's in general) Linux is improving the fastest, increasingly playing less catchup and more innovation. Linux IS the future, even if it takes a while (2007 was an amazing year for linux adoption IMO, the best since 2000-2004 (Mandrakes time) in terms of publicity. I began in 2005 from the results of 2000-2004 I would have started earlier if I had had a better internet connection.

I look at how I began and then look at the publicity of last year and today, Ubuntu, Asus eeePC's, the Streisand effect of Microsoft's patent fud and can really really see more people taking the plunge. If firefox's market share is anything to go by, I can see Linux adoption increasing very much.

That old Catch 22 of market share, developers, users, apps is being whittled away at and it is great!.

[Mateo]

That is a key caveat. Since machines capable or running Vista well are rather high-end Xp WILL be the better for many.

Besides, the job of an OS is NOT to eat up all of a machine's resources. It's quite the opposite actually. It's supposed to efficiently make resources available to productive application programs.

You're missing the point that it is all relative. See my Gnome vs. Fluxbox analogy. More resource usage doesn't mean worse.



Add to this some compatibility issues with existing hardware and software (in a closed source culture where programs cannot easily be ported) and you get why people don't like Vista.

That's an unfair criticism, however. If you want to compare compatibility, you have to do it equally to both sides. Sure, some XP apps do not work (well) in Vista. But aren't there likely many Vista apps that don't work in XP? I'd imagine so. If so this is strike against both.

If you are just judging the operating systems themselves, they are essentially the same, with Vista having a few improvements.

[cardinals_fan]

It does use more system resources, yes. But Gnome also uses more system resources than Fluxbox. This doesn't mean Fluxbox is better than Gnome, it just means that it can run on more systems. Using a system that is capable of running Vista efficiently, I don't see how XP can be considered better. How?
But for me, Fluxbox is better. For me, GNOME is bad. Everyone's different.

[id1337x]

It is really awesome that Linux is getting so much more support. I think it really has to do with how many people clearly have been complaining about Windows Vista. I personally converted because I was using the GIMP, Mozilla, Aptana/Eclipse, Open Office, and mostly free software on Windows so it only made sense to switch to Linux.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

But for me, Fluxbox is better. For me, GNOME is bad. Everyone's different.

Who else thinks we should write to the powers that be and have the words "good", "better", "worse" and "bad" banished from the English language, in favour of more descriptive and better understood alternatives?

Now that this thread seems to be straying into the usual "how open source can succeed" discussion, I will share an interesting observation I made today. Retailers prefer selling services such as warranties in terms of earning profit. I expect this is because, with actual physical products, the cost is funnelled through a very complex system leaving very little breathing room for profits. With a service, margins are much more flexible since cost can start and stop with one company.

With that in mind, I think Linux or open source can get a lot of momentum if Linux support can be a powerful concept for average consumers.

[Methuselah]

You're missing the point that it is all relative. See my Gnome vs. Fluxbox analogy. More resource usage doesn't mean worse.


Of course, more resource usage is inferior unless there is functionality to justify that. The difference between fluxbox and gnome is that fluxbox is a window manager whereas gnome is a desktop environment and actually runs a window manager (metacity) as part of its operation. Gnome is really an entire suite of programs and has capabilities way beyond fluxbox on its own. Would you drive a car that gives 8 miles to the gallon when there are cars that are essentially as good but give 26 miles to the gallon? However a car that gives 26 miles per gallon is no substitute for a freight hauling trailer that gives 8.

The point is, Windows Xp and Vista are both operating systems that do essentially the same thing (whereas fluxbox and gnome have different scopes). However, one is a resource hog. What value does Vista offer to the end user over Xp to the extent that Xp can run on 512 Mb of RAM and vista needs 2Gb if you want the machine to be responsive? In my opinion, comparison of feature sets yields no sensible explanation.

And don't even other to talk about DRM and all that user antagonistic crap running in the background. I'm talking about the additional user empowering features that are eating up all 4 times as much RAM and extra processing power. I can't find them.



That's an unfair criticism, however. If you want to compare compatibility, you have to do it equally to both sides. Sure, some XP apps do not work (well) in Vista. But aren't there likely many Vista apps that don't work in XP? I'd imagine so. If so this is strike against both.


The fundamental difference between the two compatibilities is that people already running Xp have hardware and software that they already use that they might have to throw away on upgrading. Remember, if you're upgrading to Vista you're likely doing it for some benefit (ie some extra capability of the operating system itself, and business users are unlikely to care about aero) and you'd hope to be able to retain as much of your infrastructure as possible. However, it turns out you have to throw more hardware at voracious Vista to do the same thing you're already doing with Xp. You might also have to buy some new software licenses as well because some programs that work under Xp might no longer work under Vista. How does that make business sense? What have you gained? Upgrading is a whole lot less compelling given the costs and hassle to run an OS that is, as you said is:



essentially the same [as Xp], with Vista having a few improvements


It's a matter of value and since Vista is poorer value (necessitating hardware upgrades to do essentially the same thing as Xp, it's predecessor) it's a relatively bad product. I guarantee you many businesses have gone over this analysis. That is why they are still asking OEMs about Xp and microsoft has kept pushing back Xp's end of life. Would you want your operations disrupted by a rather different OS that you don't need? Really the only reason to upgrade is the fact that microsoft will eventually stop supporting Xp! If I were a business owner, I'd also take the opportunity to look for alternatives given the fact that disruption is inevitable either way. However, I might be able to prevent a future recurrence by choosing a different product that will have a smoother upgrade path going forward .

[madjr]

If you are just judging the operating systems themselves, they are essentially the same, with Vista having a few improvements.

i fail to see those Vista improvements...

i bought 3 new PCs and wiped out Vista on all.

In fact Vista was so bad, that it drove me to the alternatives (mainly linux) right from the start !

[Rinzwind]

i fail to see those Vista improvements...
YES YOU DO!

i bought 3 new PCs and wiped out Vista on all.

In fact Vista was so bad, that it drove me to the alternatives (mainly linux) right from the start !
SEE! It got you to taste Linux! Now I call that a big plus Vista has over XP.

[ugm6hr]

Moderator suggestion:

Please can we try and keep this thread about the issue of developer interest in Linux (albeit, perhaps as a consequence of concerns with Vista).

Any further comments about XP vs Vista or Fluxbox vs Gnome will relegate this discussion (and those posts) to recurring discussions.

[smoker]

Linux will almost double in apps developers next year

i think quite a few of these developers are looking at the way the wind is changing, and deciding this is where the future lies. imo, the more the merrier :-)