• arc99@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    35 seconds ago

    Every operating system contributed to the bloat. Windows has Win32, OS X has Carbon / Cocoa, Linux has X11 and various widget libs that sit on top of it. So it has been a perennial nut to crack to make cross platform widgets - wxWidgets, QT, SWT/JWT/Swing on Java, XMLShell (Firefox), Electron, GTK/GTK#, winelib etc.

    Throw mobile platforms into the mix and it’s an unholy mess. Lowest common denominator is HTML and so the likes of Electron “wins” even though it’s bloated and slow.

  • rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    30 minutes ago

    Yeah, not because they saw a way to develop for Win/Mac/Linux/Android/IOS all at the same time and went yeah, we’d take some of that.

    Naw, They REALLY wanted to dip their toes in that 2013 extra 1% of traffic pool.

  • FE80@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    What kind of shit for brains asshole is still defending Windows in 2025?

    • krooklochurm@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      And what kind of slavering mouth-breathing teoglodyte doesn’t understand that Hannah Montana Linux negates all of these issues, will suck your dixk without hesitation, and lets you read news from four days from now.

  • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The real reason is it’s a pain in the ass to deploy software in Windows. It’s not like you can easily set up a server and put some packages on and have it just automatically apt update to that. Sure there’s some “Enterprise” servers you could set up (and pay license fees for) that might work somewhat like that, but it’s easier to just make it a web app and deploy to an internet webserver.

    For product distribution, you need someone download an .exe, hope a virus scanner won’t block it, maybe pay microsoft to sign it or whatever, hope the user has a compatible version of windows, and maybe they can get some working software. But then you have to make some mechanism to handle updates and hopefully that doesn’t get blocked by some security software. So it’s easier to make your software a web application.

    Also putting out windows native applications means you might not be able to enshittify it later since people could continue to use the old version forever. It’s weird to assume enshittification happens accidentally, but it’s actually what some companies want to do their software because $$$. They want applications they can enshitty later, they don’t make applications that may work on linux and whoopsie it just somehow got enshittified because of that… somehow.

    But many times it’s just best solution. If an application doesn’t need access to anything on my system, I’d rather it be a web app. App does the thing I need, and when I’m done, I close the tab and we’re done. Why install more software on my system if I don’t need to?

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Tbh, it’s not entirely wrong, which is the reason why it works so well as rage bait.

      It’s really not about Linux, but it is about supporting anything and everything out there with a single app. Use Electron and you can have the same app running on Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, iOS, your car, your game console, your smart fridge and in a website.

      Of course the result sucks, but if you can cut development effort into a fraction while also supporting systems that you would have never supported otherwise, that’s not a bad deal for businesses.