Slashdot Mirror
What Dropbox Dropping Linux Support Says (techrepublic.com)
Jack Wallen, writing for TechRepublic: For a company to support Linux, they have to consider supporting: Multiple file systems, multiple distributions, multiple desktops, multiple init systems, multiple kernels. If you're an open source developer, focusing on a single distribution, that's not a problem. If you're a company that produces a product (and you stake your living on that product), those multiple points of entry do become a problem. Let's consider Adobe (and Photoshop). If Adobe wanted to port their industry-leading product to Linux, how do they do that? Do they spend the time developing support for ext4, btrfs, Ubuntu, Fedora, GNOME, Mate, KDE, systemd? You see how that might look from the eyes of any given company?
It becomes even more complicated when companies consider how accustomed to the idea of "free" (as in beer) Linux users are. Although I am very willing to pay for software on Linux, it's a rare occasion that I do (mostly because I haven't found a piece of must-have software that has an associated cost). Few companies will support the Linux desktop when the act of supporting means putting that much time and effort into a product that a large cross-section of users might wind up unwilling to pay the price of admission. That's not to say every Linux user is unwilling to shell out the cost for a piece of software. But many won't.
It becomes even more complicated when companies consider how accustomed to the idea of "free" (as in beer) Linux users are. Although I am very willing to pay for software on Linux, it's a rare occasion that I do (mostly because I haven't found a piece of must-have software that has an associated cost). Few companies will support the Linux desktop when the act of supporting means putting that much time and effort into a product that a large cross-section of users might wind up unwilling to pay the price of admission. That's not to say every Linux user is unwilling to shell out the cost for a piece of software. But many won't.
I thought Slashdot of all places would be free of the old Microsoft FUD from the 90s about how supposedly fragmented Linux is and how Linux users don't want to pay for software because Linux itself is (usually) free... The reality is that from an application developer's perspective Linux is about as fragmented as Linux and OSX if you can use some pretty basic principles and Linux users do pay for software if good paid software is available. It's also kind of ridiculous for SystemD to be brought up here when application developers don't need to work with it and it's pretty much universally used at this point.
But hey, gotta bait those clicks somehow right?
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
There is a ton of applications on Linux that all do not have these problems. It just requires a bit of experience and not using every damned feature some specialized installation may have. Apparently, Dropbox is lacking the skills for that though.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Except Dropbox wants access to your filesystem details for their backup stuff., not just the file descriptor and data.
So, in other words, Dropbox is run by retards who have no clue about proper software development.
It's a program that copies files from one location to another. If Dropbox can't get out of the way and let the OS worry about things like the file system and systemD, then there is something seriously wrong with them.
This is a classic case of Doing It Wrong®.
Let's take the case of Adobe porting Photoshop to linux.
1: ext4/btrfs - This does not matter at all. There is no case where photoshop cares about the filesystem it runs from.
Ubuntu/Fedora - Not really a problem. I personally run Fedora, but fedora don't have any problems running binary software developed for Ubuntu. Case in point: Most of the games I have in my Steam library are developed for Ubuntu, and have newer been tested on Fedora by the devoper at all. But they still run fine on Fedora.
Gnome vs Mate vs KDE - Again: Why should Photoshop care? None of my other apps really care so why should Photoshop?
Case in point: Even if I replace Kde which I currently use with a version of Enlightenment which I have compiled my self, none of my software will stop working. Apps don't care.
systemd: If Photoshop cares about my init system, something have gone really really wrong. No issue at all.
That exposes a basic misunderstanding of how software in Linux is built. The program which presents a remote filesystem should be separate from the program which synchronizes files. That's the unix way.
It also makes Dropbox's job simple: a fuse (filesystem in userspace) driver and then let folks stack whatever other Linux software they want to on top of it.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
If that's the case then explain systemd. /s
Easy; systemd is not the unix way.
This type of design is what I find is what developers make when they are at the "Arrogant Rookie" level of their career.
Where if there was a book on the technology, The skills used are from chapter 1 and the last chapter.
They are trying to show off how good they are by not doing things the easy way.
I had once had to maintain an application because the developer who decided to access a database not via the SQL commands that it supported, but by directly accessing the DLLs and doing the direct calls to the database engine.
Yes it was faster, but this product was so tightly tied to the Database system that it was nearly impossible to upgrade the database engine, and were at the direct wims of the Database Company, if they charged more then we had to pay more, or do a near full rewrite of the application. As well if there was a bug in the code, then the entire data would get messed up because of the low level access. As well it skipped steps to make the data SQL compatible so it required either a hex editor or custom programming for any ad-hoc report, or odd data fix.
Normally if a company or a product seems to be very strictly worried about low level differences, chances are it was coded by an Amateur who thinks himself all that. And is a sure sign to avoid such product on all environments.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
rsync was a Unix tool. So it was probably designed around the Unix design principals. While Dropbox was a hack design to Windows.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That is my thought. It was just FUD way to explain they just don't want to do it.
Other then saying all these "technical" difficulties. They should just state that it is difficult to support Linux, because it is hard to train Level 1 India support to navigate a non-standardized UI.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.