That’s not due to the operating system but rather the choice of those producing the program. The operating system simply provides an interface to the underlying hardware.
The OS provides services to the application, acting as a bridge between the application and the physical hardware. The entire point of an OS is to run applications, otherwise it would serve no purpose.
If the app can run in Windows on the same hardware that Linux can, but the app can't run in Linux, then the only difference is the OS.
Yes, but this is a design choice made by those who make the app, not a design choice made by those that make the operating system.
If I make a screwdriver that isn’t compatible with any screws on the market, that is my poor design choice, not that of screw manufacturers.
True, but that doesn't change the fact that Linux can't run the application.
Or you know, the fact that the application can’t run on Linux.
If you want to be pedantic, be pedantic. The OS is what loads and runs the application.
Yes, but windows was not designed for the application. The application was designed for windows. This is a huge difference and blame for it not running on Linux should be placed at the producers of the application, not the os. If you want to criticize an os, then do so by looking at what does and does not work in the hardware interface, not by listing applications that have been designed for particular systems.
For all I know, windows could be the worst thing ever to develop applications for, but since it’s the most popular OS, most companies targets it for development. It doesn’t make it a better os.
I'm not arguing about whose fault it is at all. I know very well that it's the app's fault. But that does not change the fact that Linux can't run the app.
I'm also not criticizing Linux. I use Linux on my desktop and I'm very happy with it. I'm just stating the simple fact that Linux can't run the app.
Linux also can't change the oil in my car. That's not a criticism, it's just a fact.
That’s not due to the operating system but rather the choice of those producing the program. The operating system simply provides an interface to the underlying hardware.
The OS provides services to the application, acting as a bridge between the application and the physical hardware. The entire point of an OS is to run applications, otherwise it would serve no purpose.
If the app can run in Windows on the same hardware that Linux can, but the app can't run in Linux, then the only difference is the OS.
Yes, but this is a design choice made by those who make the app, not a design choice made by those that make the operating system.
If I make a screwdriver that isn’t compatible with any screws on the market, that is my poor design choice, not that of screw manufacturers.
True, but that doesn't change the fact that Linux can't run the application.
Or you know, the fact that the application can’t run on Linux.
If you want to be pedantic, be pedantic. The OS is what loads and runs the application.
Yes, but windows was not designed for the application. The application was designed for windows. This is a huge difference and blame for it not running on Linux should be placed at the producers of the application, not the os. If you want to criticize an os, then do so by looking at what does and does not work in the hardware interface, not by listing applications that have been designed for particular systems.
For all I know, windows could be the worst thing ever to develop applications for, but since it’s the most popular OS, most companies targets it for development. It doesn’t make it a better os.
I'm not arguing about whose fault it is at all. I know very well that it's the app's fault. But that does not change the fact that Linux can't run the app.
I'm also not criticizing Linux. I use Linux on my desktop and I'm very happy with it. I'm just stating the simple fact that Linux can't run the app.
Linux also can't change the oil in my car. That's not a criticism, it's just a fact.