Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 08:00:05PM +0530, Manish Jethani wrote:
Actually, to tell you frankly even I often find myself in this situation. Sometimes I don't have a JVM, sometimes I don't have perl. But over time I've found it worth the effort to get a CD and install a decent JVM. That immediately opens me to so many useful applications out there. That's also the very reason why I bought a PC, installed GNU/Linux, ... and now installing a JVM!
Sounds so familiar ... lets try putting this in a different language:
Hacker: I developed my code on the Windows platform because everyone seems to be using it anyway.
The problem with developing only for Windows is that your code will run only on Microsoft's OSes. Users would need to install some version (or worse, a particular, newer version) of Windows. Other companies don't (can't?!) develop Windows. This locks the user into "Microsoft technologies".
And what's wrong with that?
1) RMS: This is against the Free software philosophy. 2) Apple, Sun, etc: This is creating (has created) a "monopoly". 3) People like me: Microsoft technologies are crappy anyway. :)
Is that the case with Java? Do users need to install Sun's JVM? Are other companies/groups allowed to develop their own JVMs? Are the specs open? Are there Java compilers other than Sun's available in the market?
You can't be comparing Windows with Java.
<side> Slashdot: Programming Languages Will Become OSes [http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/17/1656249] </side>
Webdesigner: This sight is best viewed in IE version so-and-so because I developed it in IE version so-and-so because ... (you guessed it) everyone seems to be using it anyway.
Again, developing for "IE only" is akin to developing for a particular, non-standards-conforming JVM (how about Microsoft's JVM for an example?).
But, yes, developing for "the Web" as a platform is ok (good?) as long as your code is standards compliant (valid HTML, limited/no use of Javasript). If you don't want to install a Web browser on your system then I'm afraid I can't write a "thin-client" version of my front-end in C just so that you can run it "directly from the commandl line". It wouldn't be profitable enough for me, _amongst_other_things_.
(A lot of software developers are doing that BTW - desupporting old thin-clients and promoting Web-based front-ends.)
User: I use Windows because there are so many more apps available on it, I don't mind paying for the licenses ... besides, (yes, right again) everyone else seems to be using it anyway!
Well, if J. Random User doesn't mind paying for the license fees for Windows and _she_likes_using_it_ then I don't see *any* problem with it. You might not like this fact, but a lot of people actually love using Windows just like you and I love using GNU/Linux. Some others use it because they have major investments in it (my uncle is a lawyer, and he has hajaar documentation in Word format, and at the age of 45 he has no interest in learning how to use a new word processor just because Windows is not Free!).
We need to help more users migrate to Linux, and we need to make more users start liking Linux. The latter seems to be turning out to be difficult (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I feel, honestly). Of course, I'm speaking of Linux in desktop context here.
Manish