Maybe it's because "developing a good OS" and "making $$$" are different
goals? IMHO, it's a good thing that for most Linux developers these projects
are not the primary sources of income. In this way we can adopt technologies
on basis of their technical merit/fun rather than just commercial success. And
I don't think any of the technologies listed above are too exciting. MFC for
example reminds me of Cobol - people have to spend much more time thinking
about limitations of the framework than about what their applications are
supposed to do.
What we need is good emulators for Win32/16 and MacOS to run the stuff that
is not fun to write - like MSOffice. I would definitely buy Wabi and MAE if
there was a version for Linux. Executor is a start, but its design makes
it very difficult to be 100% bug-compatible with a real Mac.
> The Linux community should also shed the notion that everything
> should be free. Prices should not be what they are for Sun or HP
> products (multi thousand dollars for a GUI painter) but should
> be similar to PC market prices. I know I am willing to spend some
> cash.
Free software has other advantages in addition to sparing the cash. You
can bugfix and improve every program. And you can also play with hundreds
of programs that are not completely necessary - few people could buy all of
them.
> Microsoft operating systems are second rate. Everyone knows that.
> Microsoft applications and applications architectures are the very best.
>
Maybe, but only because MS squeezed out all the competitors.
-- _. _ . (_ ,_ _ , . / ` _ _L | Email: Oleg Kibirev <snowcat@netgate.net> ._)| U(_)\/\/ \_,(_L/L | Visit http://math.math.CSUFresno.EDU/~oleg/math.html ------------------------' to get my programs + PGP public key