Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Scripps Employees Called 'Hackers' For Exposing Massive Security Flaw
Developers shifting away from Windows, and towards Linux and handhelds
Could developers be moving towards Linux and handhelds? A new study says they are! Evans Data has published a study that found that Windows developers are dropping slowly, with 65% of software being written for Windows this year compared with 75% last year. The shift began two years ago, and seems to be drastically increasing. Why this change? Web browsers are becoming capable of running advanced applications both on and offline, making desktop operating systems seem less important.
What are your thoughts, should developers keep their focus on browser/web based applications like Apollo, and forget about developing for multi operating systems?
Comments
7
Subscribe to comments.net developerJul 4th 2007 5:13PM
Yes, developers go where the users go. Windows still has the most users, but with web apps the OS does not matter as much any more.
darkNiGHTSJul 4th 2007 6:25PM
Developers should move towards Linux, we should be freed from all of this propriety licensed crap we have to deal with now.
ReallyVirtualJul 5th 2007 5:18AM
Qt ( http://www.trolltech.com ) is a great choice for platform-independent development ( Windows/Mac/*nix are supported) if C++ is your language of choice.
I've been using Qt since last year, and am really impressed by what I can do with it.
Not everyone is online all the time, and there are some things a browser just can't handle (like processor intensive 3D graphics... which is my domain).
ToddJul 5th 2007 8:51AM
Why would any modern, competent professional continue to participate in the Redmond extortion racket - $35,000.00 buy for a Windows SDK? No thanks.
The LAMP stack and any number of AJAX SDKs, along with eclipse, are available for $0 buy-in, $0 licensing.
Reminder, the desktop is dead, and less than 5% of the world's mobile phones do NOT run Windows.
JamesJul 5th 2007 12:04PM
Todd, I don't know what kind of rip-off artist is supplying your company, according to numerous internet sources (including the page where you download it!) the Windows SDK should be free. We pay less than $1k/yr per head for MSDN subscriptions, which includes a "convenience" copy of the Windows SDK, in addition to all their platforms, servers, and devleopment tools.
If you're a small time developer, you can get Visual Studio Express for free, along with SDK/DDK/MSDN, and there are to the best of my knowledge no licensing restrictions on what you can do with the projects you make. If you need more features in your IDE, you can pay for them in the "Professional" products, but a thousand bucks a head is peanuts in the scope of a major company's budget.
I'm not trying to be disparaging about open source development -- I like Eclipse, though I've had it crash on me quite a bit more than Studio ever has -- but it's dishonest to suggest that there's such thing as a "Redmond extortion racket". They provide a range of products to meet different needs -- "Express" free tools, and "Professional" suites that, while expensive in the scope of an individual's budget, are about on par with what businesses expect to pay for software. Would I like Visual Studio 2005 Professional Team Super Extra Everything Edition to cost less than a hundred bucks? Sure, just like I'd like to drive a Jaguar and bathe in Dom Perignon, but that's not the case.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that last sentence -- I think you have an unintentional double negative -- but you're neither the first nor, I fear, the last to proclaim the death of the desktop. Every couple of years, somebody predicts the rise of the thin client, but it never seems to happen -- people keep coming up with better ways to use client-side horsepower. Whether Eclipse advocates like you like it or not, the fact remains that most Americans (and to a somewhat lesser extent most people in general) have a Windows desktop PC at home and at work. There may be more people with handhelds, but I'd bet that most of those people also have a Windows PC sitting on a desk at home.
ToddJul 5th 2007 5:17PM
@James
Sir, I did in fact mistype that last sentence - it should read "Less than 5% of all the world's mobile phones are using Windows Mobile". Please excuse the error.
As for all you MSDN SDK data, which is mostly accurate, the $35k is the "buy in" cost for "Microsoft Certified" status. That MS certified status is what allows for indemnification. Investors and insurance companies want it.
...but overall my gut reaction to the original post was shock that anyone is developing new desktop apps at all - it is just too expensive. Note the iPhone's "SDK" is plain old AJAX.
ColinJul 6th 2007 11:46PM
My only fear is the rapid dissolve of the HIG. If every application is web-based, and each uses its own interface, I'm not happy.
One of the reasons I stayed with Mac OS is because of the consistency. This has been eroding over time, but *most* OS X applications look and act relatively similar.
If web app developers create APIs, and Mac/Windows/Linux developers continue to create wrapper applications, then I'll again be happy.