Free is too expensive (Economist)
Posted Apr 6, 2012 2:37 UTC (Fri) by rqosa
In reply to: Free is too expensive (Economist)
Parent article: Free is too expensive (Economist)
> 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.
But if that's why Linux has less usage share, then backwards/forwards compatibility doesn't matter — it's because of lock-in, not lack of backwards/forward compatibility.
> Most people never knew how to cope with these problems (and have no interest in finding out)
Sure, many users want programs to "just work" without needing to tinker with them. But users like those are unlikely to contribute to the development of the programs they use, and the entire purpose of FLOSS is to make it possible for every user to become a developer. That's why the user/developer community isn't willing to have a situation where "you must support old technology (often decade old technology) thus development is nightmare" just for the sake of attracting the kind of user who's not willing to get their hands dirty. (For example, it's better to have 10000 users where 1000 of them contribute to the software, than to have 1 million users where only 50 of them contribute to the software.)
to post comments)