Slashdot Mirror
Why Do Commercial Offerings Use Linux, But Not Support Linux Users?
Michele Alessandrini writes "Having bought several TomTom One navigation systems at work, I was browsing their web site to find information about maps.
There are several pages of documentation about their devices.
In one of them, they proudly inform you that their devices use Linux, as a warranty of power and stability. They even prominently display their GPL compatibility. But, when you come to the software (the one used to manage updates, set locations, etc), they only support Windows and Mac OS. Not that surprising, and not a real necessity. Just the same, they probably saved millions of dollars using a free kernel and didn't think to support Linux users. As Linux gains ground in commercial applications like this, how often are we going to see actual users of the OS left out in the cold? Why don't more Linux-using shops reach out to the Linux-using community?"
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Because their web interface programmers are using Windows or Macs.
It's the same reason they use linux in the first place that they don't support linux-desktop users.
To save money.
For most companies, linux is too small of market to be worth devoting development time to. As companies follow in IBM's and AMD's footsteps, though, I think linux support will continue to increase, but I doubt it will ever match Windows and OS X levels.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
They have enough trouble supporting Windows users.
Imagine trying to deal with some bumbling idiot with an Ubuntu box?
And then... Which distro(s) should they support?
Because their job is to make money not support linux users. If you want to see a business that supports linux users start one.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
Submitter's logic is fuzzy. Tomtom runs on linux because Linux is a good candidate for an embedded operating system. From a technical and business standpoint, it makes sense to use linux here: no license fees to a proprietary vendor, greater control over the OS, etc. From a business standpoint, supporting Windows clients makes sense as well. It's a question of numbers: There are more Windows desktop users than Linux desktop users. The right tool for the right job. Making your own standardized device run on Linux is a lot easier than making software that supports an entire ecosystem of OSes.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
There are so many variations of linux and variations of configurations that it is very difficult to provide support.
Not really, see, because if you build your app for a very popular linux distro and release the source code, the community will do the rest of the porting for you.
But once again we see how wanting to keep things secret and hush hush this is proprietary stuff just slows down progress.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's amazing how well Linux works on the desktop despite so many manufacturers REFUSING to support Linux for one reason or another.
The over all Linux market share for the desktop is low, but it's not zero. In terms of sheer unit numbers, it's still a lot. As more and more embedded devices use Linux (as well as other platforms (mobile) that are not Windows / IE centric,) the demand will grow for more compatibility / open protocols / etc. and manufacturers / sites / etc. will have to support it. Us Linux users are a patient bunch.
"But why should a company support linux just because their gadget has linux running inside it?"
Because they are benefiting from a mature, open source, and well understood pre-established operating system. If there was no Linux they would have to spend much more development costs in building their own OS for their devices.
I am sensing some hypocracy here, not with respect to this poster but Linux/GPL advocates in general. When BSD folks complain about GPL folks not respecting the spirit of FOSS and "giving back"(1) there is a strong sentiment from the GPL advocates of "too bad, the letter of your license allow us to take and not give back". However when corporation comply with the letter of the GPL and do not "give back" beyond source code GPL advocates complain.
(1) For example in a scenario where a GPL developer takes BSD code, incorporates it into a GPL based project, makes minor fixes or improvements, but does not update the original BSD code with these fixes or minor improvements. Absolutely legal with respect to the BSD license but against the FOSS spirit of giving back to those whose shoulders you stand upon.
First of all, Photoshop is a high level application. That has no bearing on what a *developer* might consider unreasonable as a development cost going into their own application. Secondly, I am a developer, I am responsible for an application of Photoshop's approximate class, we're completely debt-free and cashy, and I still wouldn't consider licensing GUI widgets. As far as I am concerned, the day linux gets GUI widgets that are always there and available on the same terms as those in OS X and Windows is the day I'm willing to release a port to the platform. Other people may have other opinions, and I'm not saying they aren't valid, but that's mine. Either the OS provides the GUI, or as far as I'm concerned, there is no GUI. And incorporating anything using the GPL... not a chance on this earth. But we do have a working linux port ready for the eventuality that the OS changes to provide a standard GUI. There are projects running to get that done, thank goodness. All we'll have to do is move the widgetry over and we should be good to go.
Not so. Mac users pay, and pay well, and in large numbers, for good applications. If your app isn't a support problem, every sale is a profitable sale, and the Mac OS, being extremely stable and reliable (just like linux, I might add), is a wonderful platform for selling software into. The linux market isn't even remotely comparable. The GPL is the perfect example of the linux attitude towards commercial software - and it is not commercial friendly. Selling support doesn't work either unless your app is so unfriendly people require help to use it, or else if it is buggy, or has compatibility problems. Applications that "just work", which is our actual goal, have to be sold on initial perceived value, actual value in use, and perceived value of upgrades. Selling someone a "service contract" you know they'll never have to use isn't a very ethical thing to do either.
Oh. I get it. You think the cost of going with a third party widget set is the initial monetary outlay. Well, that's certainly part of it, but what happens when trolltech goes out of business, and linux just keeps evolving? Or the opposite - when Trolltech decides that they're not going to support an older linux, but we want to support our customers? Why should we risk tying our application to a third party? With a better OS design - meaning, one that actually has its own GUI - you can be pretty certain that your stuff is going to continue working. Windows 95 software still works and its been 12 years. Trolltech would never do this, I hear you say? Whoops, wrong. They already have. I can't compile or run the current Gimp on a stock RH9 system, not all that old, frankly. If it isn't complaining about the font libraries or the version of the C compiler, it's having a meltdown over some obscure library I've never even heard of. When I spoke up about this, I was told, "update the linux system"; but that's precisely the wrong answer. A commercial app needs to work on the widest possible number of systems, not only the latest and greatest. At least, as far as I'm concerned. I admit I've run into developers who grab at new OS features like chimps after bright yellow bananas, but we're not one of those. Our objective is to get the app working, and keep the app working. If something shows up we want from a later OS, and we can't special case it in and out based on OS level detection, we just won't use it. Because to lock out our users with old OS's is unaccept
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.