Free is too expensive (Economist)
Posted Apr 3, 2012 6:19 UTC (Tue) by khim
In reply to: Free is too expensive (Economist)
Parent article: Free is too expensive (Economist)
Back when I used to use Mac OS X occasionally, I remember not being able to run some things because they required a newer version of the OS (which costs money).
Yeah. This happens. Perhaps one of the reasons for why MacOS has less then 10% of desktop. Even so it fits in I've forgotten more than you'll ever know adage: number of programs which you can easily run on MacOS and Windows still dwarfs number of programs which you can run on Linux even if you'll not count oddballs which require too-new or too-old version of MacOS and Windows.
The situation isn't as bad as you make it sound. Running old programs on a newer distribution is usually just a matter of installing old libraries, and distributions might even provide packages of those old libraries.
Sure. And the current 1% of users correlates with number of people who not only know about that but consider the time required to hunt and install these fair price for the Linux use. Article we are discussing here claims Linux used to have 2.5% of desktop 10 years ago - this is consistent with this explanation: desktop grew about 3x times, but proportion of people which will tolerate this nonsense shrank. Most people never knew how to cope with these problems (and have no interest in finding out) and some people who do know how to do that decided they have more interesting things to do.
to post comments)