It's not out of carelessness or spite. The developer(s) can only support something they use at least semi-regularly.
Many developers who use Windows don't support Linux for example (and vice versa). Even if the code were cross platform. They simply can't claim to support something they don't use themselves or have resources to test extensively because it'll requires continous support and there can be a lot of incompatabilities even among different linux distros or environments.
That's why, in OSS, support for different platforms is usually done by having a separate engineer as maintainer for each platform, e.g: Linux drivers, gcc (for different CPU architectures), etc. These maintainers are each experts in their respective platforms and responsible for supporting it.
Here is a list of OSes[0]. Where do you draw the line on supporting these? Should every new project try to support all of these? Do you, doublerabbit, get to decide which OSes are important enough for support?
Or do you think the person who created the project and does all the work should be able to decide where to spend their free time?
It's not out of carelessness or spite. The developer(s) can only support something they use at least semi-regularly.
Many developers who use Windows don't support Linux for example (and vice versa). Even if the code were cross platform. They simply can't claim to support something they don't use themselves or have resources to test extensively because it'll requires continous support and there can be a lot of incompatabilities even among different linux distros or environments.
That's why, in OSS, support for different platforms is usually done by having a separate engineer as maintainer for each platform, e.g: Linux drivers, gcc (for different CPU architectures), etc. These maintainers are each experts in their respective platforms and responsible for supporting it.
FreeBSD once peaked at a 0.01% desktop market share.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide...
So? You should still develop for.
Why? For this whole reason. What does it matter? You should target all audiences.
Why not?
> You should target all audiences.
Here is a list of OSes[0]. Where do you draw the line on supporting these? Should every new project try to support all of these? Do you, doublerabbit, get to decide which OSes are important enough for support?
Or do you think the person who created the project and does all the work should be able to decide where to spend their free time?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems
2 replies →
> Why not?
Because it's extra work.
1 reply →
Make a patch for FreeBSD if you care about it. Pick up maintainership to ensure it keeps working. That's how this works. Andreas is not your bitch.
5 replies →
Why BSD and not Haiku?
3 replies →