I've done 'nix development, and agree that for certain things it's much nicer.
On Windows, VS debugger beats everything else I've seen hands down.
It's not hard to support Windows if you're writing good cross-platform code; there are a lot of libraries (Qt, Boost, etc.) that make things much easier than they used to be.
Again, I see lack of Windows support mostly as programmers being lazy (and I've said the same thing about lack of 'nix support, so don't think I'm being biased).
If you don't write portable code you're doing it wrong.
> I see lack of Windows support mostly as programmers being lazy
"Lazy" would imply that Windows support is somehow a requirement that's being shirked by developers, which frankly it isn't. Microsoft is not entitled to have developers support, expend effort on, or even give a moment's thought to their platforms.
Windows is still by far the primary platform users (maybe not devs) use, and yes, for any serious project, it is most definitely a requirement. I didn't get the sense from the website that it wasn't going to come to Windows, just that they haven't had the chance to get it working yet. I don't find the devs attitude lazy unless they actually come out and say screw it we aren't going to both to support Windows.
And this attitude being displayed toward Microsoft is just lazy (and very likely the province of the young), because while they did give us a crappy browser and Webforms for way too long, and they are fun to poke fun at, they've done more than most companies to push both the computer revolution and the Internet as a whole forward to what it is today. So give them a little credit, pull your head outta the sand and actually take a look at what they do once in a while also. You might be surprised what you find.
A lot of us "young" devs grew up on windows and remember what a hostile place it was to learn. My disdain for Microsoft is anything but lazy, I have worked very hard not to have to develop for Windows.
I think if you pull your head out of the sand you'll find many serious projects that don't depend on Microsoft. 99% of Web servers run *nix and any project done for the web doesn't need windows. How many billions of dollars are being made on Android and iOS?
As far as I'm concerned Microsoft has squandered any goodwill they may have been due, if they deserve any credit it is for driving me to open source.
Do pray tell, how many more people were brought onto the web using IE and AOL than some janky 'nix browser?
As much as everyone bitches about them, the entire reason we even have affordable desktops and laptops enabling this magical open-source revolution is because of the work Microsoft did in the 80s and 90s.
Because no one else would have filled that void...
That's like saying if Henry Ford had never mass produced cars, no one would have figured it out...
Yes MS created the PC ecosystem in the 90's, but if they hadn't, someone else would have (Apple? IBM? Maybe even Sun?). Market pressure would have eventually driven down prices, it always does...
Apple was busy shooting itself in the foot as a boutique brand. IBM was not interested in lowering prices. Sun (and SGI for that matter) were heavily wed to the workstation and high-end server market.
Microsoft (and Intel) by careful work made it possible for cheaper hardware to still run a product people wanted, and so create the market pressures you're referring to.
They were a pure software company, and used that to enable competition in the hardware market.
I'd argue that the web, Android and iOS are the primary platforms that 'users' use.
Who uses Windows for native apps that are truly Windows exlusive? Even Microsoft Office is a web app now, it's on OSX and iOS, and can even be run on Linux if you're crafty enough. Windows-only games? Fewer and fewer.
I'd definitely argue that Windows is not a requirement, though going cross-platform is a bonus.
As far as giving MS credit, they have been open sourcing many of their projects, and playing a little nicer with the non-Windows ecosystem...
None of my serious projects over the last 14 years have had Windows as a requirement at all. Over the last 19 years, I've only worked on two serious projects were Windows support was a requirement - they add up to a combined about 2 months of effort.
You need to narrow it down substantially for that claim to make any sense.
(as for their contributions, I'm not going to get started on what would just end in a flamewar - suffice to say we have very different views on what the computing world is likely to have looked like without MS)
Users can use whatever platform or platforms they like. Developers are not punishing users by only targeting certain platforms, and platform developers like Microsoft are more than capable of providing a compatibility layer for other platforms, should they choose to.
I think the downvotes are more for your tone than whatever point you're trying to make.
Also, code portability for a project like this is important, but that's not universally true. Having a hard and fast requirement for code portability imposes a set of concerns, design and maintenance issues that complicates a project. It (almost) never comes for free, and is a legitimate concern for any project--even ones where a portability requirement is almost a given.
If it is useful at all on anything, for anything, then it is doing pretty well.
And, unless you are the sort of person for whom using another platform when necessary is no great stress, then perhaps you shouldn't even be looking at installing untested alpha-level software releases anyway.
