And is a sure sign to avoid such product on all environments. Normally if a company or a product seems to be very strictly worried about low level differences, chances are it was coded by an Amateur who thinks himself all that. As well it skipped steps to make the data SQL compatible so it required either a hex editor or custom programming for any ad-hoc report, or odd data fix. As well if there was a bug in the code, then the entire data would get messed up because of the low level access. Yes it was faster, but this product was so tightly tied to the Database system that it was nearly impossible to upgrade the database engine, and were at the direct wims of the Database Company, if they charged more then we had to pay more, or do a near full rewrite of the application. I had once had to maintain an application because the developer who decided to access a database not via the SQL commands that it supported, but by directly accessing the DLLs and doing the direct calls to the database engine. They are trying to show off how good they are by not doing things the easy way. Where if there was a book on the technology, The skills used are from chapter 1 and the last chapter. This type of design is what I find is what developers make when they are at the 'Arrogant Rookie' level of their career. That's not to say every Linux user is unwilling to shell out the cost for a piece of software. Few companies will support the Linux desktop when the act of supporting means putting that much time and effort into a product that a large cross-section of users might wind up unwilling to pay the price of admission.

Although I am very willing to pay for software on Linux, it's a rare occasion that I do (mostly because I haven't found a piece of must-have software that has an associated cost). It becomes even more complicated when companies consider how accustomed to the idea of 'free' (as in beer) Linux users are. If Adobe wanted to port their industry-leading product to Linux, how do they do that? Do they spend the time developing support for ext4, btrfs, Ubuntu, Fedora, GNOME, Mate, KDE, systemd? You see how that might look from the eyes of any given company? If you're a company that produces a product (and you stake your living on that product), those multiple points of entry do become a problem. If you're an open source developer, focusing on a single distribution, that's not a problem. Jack Wallen, writing for TechRepublic: For a company to support Linux, they have to consider supporting: Multiple file systems, multiple distributions, multiple desktops, multiple init systems, multiple kernels.

Dropbox smart sync linux