The Linux Experiment recently interviewed the CEO who answered this question.
Basically it's the same as anything else. Linux requires more effort to code for due to its variety of distributions, and has a significantly smaller userbase.
In short, don't blame Proton, blame the (lack of) users.
That's a bullshit excuse. Looks at Arch's AUR. Look at Gentoo's guru. What happens for proprietary stuff is a deb or rpm package is downloaded, extracted and files copies where they should be. That's it. And it works, because the cornerstone of the system is libc and the kernel. And these, for the overwhelming majority of applications, behave exactly the same on all distros.
I mean, can’t you just package your app in flatpack or even snap? Bam, your app works on 99% of distributions for little effort. That’s what Spotify does, and I’d argue they have even less incentive to support Linux than proton does
He also answered this claim, it is right for apps that aren't stuff like Proton VPN that can't work in a sandboxed environment. They are working on it iirc
Screw VPNs, give us everything else!
I don't know, I'm not a developer. Lots of companies don't make their products available on Linux, most cite similar reasoning, so it's unsurprising. But I agree it's disappointing. I really wish Linux was more user-friendly.
Spoken like someone who has never developed a app package
Sure, as long as you don't need any integration with other software, don't need arbitrary IPC, and actually keep some dependencies in line with some common denominator because there's only so much you can do with static linking (oh excuse me, distributing the shared libraries in the same package as your binaries as if it's a new thing) once it reach the "program must actually run" part.
Flatpack and every other similar solution that are described as "works everywhere" always come with a heck of limitations.
I think the bigger issue is the variety of distros that end up not being compatible. Even if you overall have a lot of Linux users if they, for the sake of argument, distribute evenly between all distros then it's still a lot of effort to code. The only difference is that the argument will change from "Linux has a small userbase" to "Distribution X has a small userbase".
Linux doesn't just need more users to be worthwhile to develop for, it also needs a distro agnostic solution to run software. That or significantly reducing (or streamlining) the amount of distros so the developers would have far less configurations to account for.
Flatpaks and nix packages work on pretty much every distro.
The Linux Experiment recently interviewed the CEO who answered this question.
Basically it's the same as anything else. Linux requires more effort to code for due to its variety of distributions, and has a significantly smaller userbase.
In short, don't blame Proton, blame the (lack of) users.
That's a bullshit excuse. Looks at Arch's AUR. Look at Gentoo's guru. What happens for proprietary stuff is a deb or rpm package is downloaded, extracted and files copies where they should be. That's it. And it works, because the cornerstone of the system is libc and the kernel. And these, for the overwhelming majority of applications, behave exactly the same on all distros.
I mean, can’t you just package your app in flatpack or even snap? Bam, your app works on 99% of distributions for little effort. That’s what Spotify does, and I’d argue they have even less incentive to support Linux than proton does
He also answered this claim, it is right for apps that aren't stuff like Proton VPN that can't work in a sandboxed environment. They are working on it iirc
Screw VPNs, give us everything else!
I don't know, I'm not a developer. Lots of companies don't make their products available on Linux, most cite similar reasoning, so it's unsurprising. But I agree it's disappointing. I really wish Linux was more user-friendly.
Spoken like someone who has never developed a app package
Sure, as long as you don't need any integration with other software, don't need arbitrary IPC, and actually keep some dependencies in line with some common denominator because there's only so much you can do with static linking (oh excuse me, distributing the shared libraries in the same package as your binaries as if it's a new thing) once it reach the "program must actually run" part.
Flatpack and every other similar solution that are described as "works everywhere" always come with a heck of limitations.
I think the bigger issue is the variety of distros that end up not being compatible. Even if you overall have a lot of Linux users if they, for the sake of argument, distribute evenly between all distros then it's still a lot of effort to code. The only difference is that the argument will change from "Linux has a small userbase" to "Distribution X has a small userbase".
Linux doesn't just need more users to be worthwhile to develop for, it also needs a distro agnostic solution to run software. That or significantly reducing (or streamlining) the amount of distros so the developers would have far less configurations to account for.
Flatpaks and nix packages work on pretty much every distro.