responding to "application X doesn't run on linux" (1 Viewer)

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#1
In the Windows Vista thread Paul started another Windows/Linux discussion and there is one point I expected him to make that I would like to answer here. One of the most common complaints about linux is that it doesn't run application X. "How can I use it if I can't run X?"

Well, I gave it some thought and here is my feeling. First of all, let's clarify one thing. Applications are not like snow flakes - no two are alike. There are lots of applications that do roughly the same thing. If you don't like Ms Office there is StarOffice, OpenOffice, Word Perfect etc. It's just not true that "if I can't run application X then I'm doomed because it has all the functions I need". Of course, it may be the case that X does things in a more efficient way and using Y would take you longer and make it more of a pain. But if you *are* contemplating a change, then obviously things won't be exactly the same as they are now. If you buy a new house, the new kitchen won't be a carbon copy of your current kitchen will it.

To the meat of the issue. What I think is a fundamental error in thinking is "since linux doesn't run X, there's something wrong with it, it's not as good as Windows". This is where I think the user has to accept some responsibility. To give a sufficiently contrived example.. if you buy a car from Ford that only runs on gasoline from BP, is it fair to blame Shell for that? Does this make Ford evil? You could say that, they are limiting your freedom of choice. But did you not still give them your money? It's like the iPod example we talked about. If you buy songs on iTunes, you can only play them on iTunes or the iPod. You cannot play them in linux because of DRM. Apple have signed a deal with the recording industry that limits the user's freedom to use media they have purchased in any software/device they might want to, that's a bad thing. But did the user not choose to enter into this contract (unwittingly most likely)? Companies always try to screw consumers, that's why consumers have to be aware of what they're dealing with.

If you base your whole business on one application that only runs on Windows, that's your fault. If Windows stops supporting it and your application suddenly stops working in Windows Vista, you're the only one with a problem. Or if the company abandons the product, again you're screwed. It's called vendor lock-in, you assume that a company will continue making decisions in your favor. So if you say "without application X I'm unable to run my business at a profit", that's your problem, isn't it?

But this doesn't in any way mean that linux isn't capable enough to run the same applications. To give you an example, one of the areas where linux lags behind is professional audio production. All the best known products are Windows/Mac only. So a bunch of audio professionals who like linux and would like to use it for work decided to fix the problem. This isn't my field, so I don't know what the demands are. But today you can take Ubuntu Linux and install a full suite of professional audio production tools (again I can't tell how 'good' they are, but they are created by the people who need to use them) and have a fully functional system. For instance, when you're recording you don't want your computer to suddenly lag and mess up the recording, so there are kernel patches that guarantee a response time in milliseconds to events. This gives you a technical guarantee that your computer will not exceed a certain latency and thus you can be sure that you can record without this concern. The same idea is used in embedded devices, medical devices etc, systems that require a certain response time. Now tell me, can you achieve the same in Windows? I don't know Windows internals, but my guess would be a big fat no.

Like I said in the other thread, there are solutions if you want to find them. There was an article on newsforge.com a few months ago about a publishing house that switched their entire business infrastructure to linux. Now publishing is still a Windows/Mac stronghold. But they spent time looking for linux based solutions and they found them. I bet they had to replace just about every single application they were using, but apparently it was worth it. Of course, this would only be possible as long as there are sufficient alternatives to use.

Finally, I sympathize with people who don't have a choice. I hear all the time that "we use Windows at work, I'm stuck". And that's understandable, there's nothing you can do. If you own the business, obviously you have a lot more power to change how things are.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
#6
Havent really got time, but im gonna quickly reply as it seems this post is in at least some part a pop at me...

Martin said:
In the Windows Vista thread Paul started another Windows/Linux discussion and there is one point I expected him to make that I would like to answer here. One of the most common complaints about linux is that it doesn't run application X. "How can I use it if I can't run X?"
Whilst I never emphasized the issue in that thread (nor did I spend time on anything as was in a hurry), I did indeed make the point that software I use and I 'Need' to use will not run on Linux.

Well, I gave it some thought and here is my feeling. First of all, let's clarify one thing. Applications are not like snow flakes - no two are alike. There are lots of applications that do roughly the same thing. If you don't like Ms Office there is StarOffice, OpenOffice, Word Perfect etc. It's just not true that "if I can't run application X then I'm doomed because it has all the functions I need". Of course, it may be the case that X does things in a more efficient way and using Y would take you longer and make it more of a pain. But if you *are* contemplating a change, then obviously things won't be exactly the same as they are now. If you buy a new house, the new kitchen won't be a carbon copy of your current kitchen will it.
Firstly your house anology is weak... When you buy a house you buy as near to perfect 'for you' as you can find with the money available... (personally I built my new house to my own specs) ... Its not a matter of being different but of being right for the individual user...

This is the same for software... I have no problem with change, but i expect an easy to use package that suits my needs.
It must work in a style i like, It must meet my feature requirement and have no compatibility issues with those i need to interact with using said software...

eg. Office... For my sins I do indeed use Ms Office... Why ? I have tried virtually every alternative available and for one reason or another i allways return to the same product, whether that be due to the feature count, the user interface or indeed compatibilty with my correspondants systems...

For me it is the 'Right' package...

As i said, I'm open to change but i want.. No need, an equal option...
Why change If i have to compromise?

There is a more important issue here as well, but i'll youch on that further down...


To the meat of the issue. What I think is a fundamental error in thinking is "since linux doesn't run X, there's something wrong with it, it's not as good as Windows". This is where I think the user has to accept some responsibility.
As i already said to you, I have no such feelings.. As i said before... Linux is not 'Right' for me... I never said anything bad or derogatory about Linux...

To me.. As i also said to you previously is something common to the average Linux user rather than the other way round.


To give a sufficiently contrived example.. if you buy a car from Ford that only runs on gasoline from BP, is it fair to blame Shell for that? Does this make Ford evil? You could say that, they are limiting your freedom of choice. But did you not still give them your money? It's like the iPod example we talked about. If you buy songs on iTunes, you can only play them on iTunes or the iPod. You cannot play them in linux because of DRM. Apple have signed a deal with the recording industry that limits the user's freedom to use media they have purchased in any software/device they might want to, that's a bad thing. But did the user not choose to enter into this contract (unwittingly most likely)? Companies always try to screw consumers, that's why consumers have to be aware of what they're dealing with.
Whilst I find that... Shall we say... 'interesting'... If anything it is more relevant to and more contradictory of your own anti-microsoft posts... Imo

If you base your whole business on one application that only runs on Windows, that's your fault. If Windows stops supporting it and your application suddenly stops working in Windows Vista, you're the only one with a problem. Or if the company abandons the product, again you're screwed. It's called vendor lock-in, you assume that a company will continue making decisions in your favor. So if you say "without application X I'm unable to run my business at a profit", that's your problem, isn't it?
Now this as you know is my issue... and No its not my fault... I'm talking about industry standard software... Software i must use, Not that i choose to use... But the only software used by the entire sector... Software I not only use on my own systems but If working away on behalf of another company, Software i will use on their systems as well... Its not about choice, Its what you must use...

You will find this is true for alot of professions... Just because you run the company does not mean you can choose what software you use... You have to have compatibilty and indepth knowledge of your associates systems as well as your own.

But this doesn't in any way mean that linux isn't capable enough to run the same applications. To give you an example, one of the areas where linux lags behind is professional audio production. All the best known products are Windows/Mac only. So a bunch of audio professionals who like linux and would like to use it for work decided to fix the problem. This isn't my field, so I don't know what the demands are. But today you can take Ubuntu Linux and install a full suite of professional audio production tools (again I can't tell how 'good' they are, but they are created by the people who need to use them) and have a fully functional system. For instance, when you're recording you don't want your computer to suddenly lag and mess up the recording, so there are kernel patches that guarantee a response time in milliseconds to events. This gives you a technical guarantee that your computer will not exceed a certain latency and thus you can be sure that you can record without this concern. The same idea is used in embedded devices, medical devices etc, systems that require a certain response time. Now tell me, can you achieve the same in Windows? I don't know Windows internals, but my guess would be a big fat no.
Again, I'm talking industry standards... So whoever designed it, however good it is... Doesnt matter.... You need to be using what the rest of youyr field are using... Maybe thats jus following... But the fact is, mostly if you want to get anywhere, you have no choice...

You end with an ever so typical stab at windows, which again, like your lack of actually testing the vista beta, You cannot be sure of... its a guess... Right or wrong? Ive no idea...
As for whether there are things you can do in Linux you cant in windows... of course there are... But what is the point in highlighting little bits you may or may not be able to do on the different systems... Windows, linux, macs... They all have their failings and their positives... We need to all make the decision according to our own needs... Not cause we are force fed that "Linux is Better"... It may be for you... That doesnt mean it is for the man next door...


Like I said in the other thread, there are solutions if you want to find them.
For some of us ther are no solutions on Linux... Maybe one day, but not now...
 
OP
Martin

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #7
    Respaul said:
    Now this as you know is my issue... and No its not my fault... I'm talking about industry standard software... Software i must use, Not that i choose to use... But the only software used by the entire sector... Software I not only use on my own systems but If working away on behalf of another company, Software i will use on their systems as well... Its not about choice, Its what you must use...
    If it's not about choice, then there's no point in discussing it at all. You asked me (correct me if I'm wrong) why it is that I badmouth Windows and what else is there to use for the average user? And I say linux is a rational choice in many ways. But if there is no possibility of change, then the point is moot. Which doesn't take anything away from Windows having its (sometimes) deep flaws that you must endure.

    Whenever I do talk about linux, it's always in a context when the person does have a choice. So why ask the question if you have a) researched the matter and b) decided you are not interested?
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)