I'm trying to put this as constructively as I can: Proudly dismissing Windows on the second line of your copy makes me not want to take you seriously. There's nothing wrong with not supporting certain platforms, but bragging about it makes you seem a bit snobby.
EDIT: And I'll grumpily admit that this also bugs me because Windows is me favorite OS and Breach looks like a thing I would actually use. I hope its just circumstance. And not some goal in itself to not support it out of some far fetched principle.
>There's nothing wrong with not supporting certain platforms, but bragging about it makes you seem a bit snobby.
A modern, HTML5-capable browser which performs well on a A2000, A3000, A4000, or A1200 running AmigaOS 3.1, with 128mb of RAM, a 33-50mhz 680030+ processor, and a 2 or 4mb Picasso video card would make one "seem a bit down to earth". It would also make a lot of us old-time Amigans happy.
You just write, "Available on OS X and Linux" (or using the logos if that's your style). Simple, professional, conveys the message without drawing flak for being some angsty kid.
Yo! I'm very happy that you didn't intend it to be like that at all. In fact, I first wrote a way snarkier comment and then I remembered the "Show HN" guidelines (and basic human decency) and deleted that comment :)
I'm impressed how something as simple as reading "only available on $NOT_MY_OS" in a nicely laid out box gives me the complete opposite emotion than what you intended. My comment got a large number of upvotes, so apparently many felt the same. And still, if you look at it, there's nothing wrong with the text in and of itself. Only on this and that OS. Fine, good to know.
So apparently, writing it with that word ("only"), with the OS logos instead of the names maybe, and so happily and centrally and proudly laid out, was what changed the perceived intent. I really thought that you guys were some kind of anti-Windows crusaders. And probably, the exact same text elsewhere, or slightly different text in that spot, would completely change that.
suggests that it was previously available but not on those platforms. You're going to find a lot of people searching high and low for the .exe file IMO.
Personally I'd stick with "Available on [apple]/[linux]", drop the "only" if you're worried about it sounding like it's a choice for exclusivity reasons. Then you probably need to add a by-line below the button indicating "MS Windows and other OS versions not yet available, please contact us through the forum [or whatever] for details". Or have a click through to gather email addresses so you can contact users later if MS Win or other versions come out.
Don't try to butter me up. We all know you are still angling for cyan with Wilma from accounts. Well that dream is dead my friend, the CFO was spotted playing golf and all his clubs have turquoise handles.
I'll take it a step further--it usually indicates to me hipster script-kiddies that don't know how to properly support multiple platforms beyond pasting together makefiles from Grandpa Google.
EDIT:
Downvote all you want--how many times have you had to deal with packages that magically only build on Windows, OSX, or Linux? Or only on a particular version of Ubuntu?
I've done 'nix development, and agree that for certain things it's much nicer.
On Windows, VS debugger beats everything else I've seen hands down.
It's not hard to support Windows if you're writing good cross-platform code; there are a lot of libraries (Qt, Boost, etc.) that make things much easier than they used to be.
Again, I see lack of Windows support mostly as programmers being lazy (and I've said the same thing about lack of 'nix support, so don't think I'm being biased).
If you don't write portable code you're doing it wrong.
> I see lack of Windows support mostly as programmers being lazy
"Lazy" would imply that Windows support is somehow a requirement that's being shirked by developers, which frankly it isn't. Microsoft is not entitled to have developers support, expend effort on, or even give a moment's thought to their platforms.
Windows is still by far the primary platform users (maybe not devs) use, and yes, for any serious project, it is most definitely a requirement. I didn't get the sense from the website that it wasn't going to come to Windows, just that they haven't had the chance to get it working yet. I don't find the devs attitude lazy unless they actually come out and say screw it we aren't going to both to support Windows.
And this attitude being displayed toward Microsoft is just lazy (and very likely the province of the young), because while they did give us a crappy browser and Webforms for way too long, and they are fun to poke fun at, they've done more than most companies to push both the computer revolution and the Internet as a whole forward to what it is today. So give them a little credit, pull your head outta the sand and actually take a look at what they do once in a while also. You might be surprised what you find.
A lot of us "young" devs grew up on windows and remember what a hostile place it was to learn. My disdain for Microsoft is anything but lazy, I have worked very hard not to have to develop for Windows.
I think if you pull your head out of the sand you'll find many serious projects that don't depend on Microsoft. 99% of Web servers run *nix and any project done for the web doesn't need windows. How many billions of dollars are being made on Android and iOS?
As far as I'm concerned Microsoft has squandered any goodwill they may have been due, if they deserve any credit it is for driving me to open source.
Do pray tell, how many more people were brought onto the web using IE and AOL than some janky 'nix browser?
As much as everyone bitches about them, the entire reason we even have affordable desktops and laptops enabling this magical open-source revolution is because of the work Microsoft did in the 80s and 90s.
Because no one else would have filled that void...
That's like saying if Henry Ford had never mass produced cars, no one would have figured it out...
Yes MS created the PC ecosystem in the 90's, but if they hadn't, someone else would have (Apple? IBM? Maybe even Sun?). Market pressure would have eventually driven down prices, it always does...
Apple was busy shooting itself in the foot as a boutique brand. IBM was not interested in lowering prices. Sun (and SGI for that matter) were heavily wed to the workstation and high-end server market.
Microsoft (and Intel) by careful work made it possible for cheaper hardware to still run a product people wanted, and so create the market pressures you're referring to.
They were a pure software company, and used that to enable competition in the hardware market.
I'd argue that the web, Android and iOS are the primary platforms that 'users' use.
Who uses Windows for native apps that are truly Windows exlusive? Even Microsoft Office is a web app now, it's on OSX and iOS, and can even be run on Linux if you're crafty enough. Windows-only games? Fewer and fewer.
I'd definitely argue that Windows is not a requirement, though going cross-platform is a bonus.
As far as giving MS credit, they have been open sourcing many of their projects, and playing a little nicer with the non-Windows ecosystem...
None of my serious projects over the last 14 years have had Windows as a requirement at all. Over the last 19 years, I've only worked on two serious projects were Windows support was a requirement - they add up to a combined about 2 months of effort.
You need to narrow it down substantially for that claim to make any sense.
(as for their contributions, I'm not going to get started on what would just end in a flamewar - suffice to say we have very different views on what the computing world is likely to have looked like without MS)
Users can use whatever platform or platforms they like. Developers are not punishing users by only targeting certain platforms, and platform developers like Microsoft are more than capable of providing a compatibility layer for other platforms, should they choose to.
I think the downvotes are more for your tone than whatever point you're trying to make.
Also, code portability for a project like this is important, but that's not universally true. Having a hard and fast requirement for code portability imposes a set of concerns, design and maintenance issues that complicates a project. It (almost) never comes for free, and is a legitimate concern for any project--even ones where a portability requirement is almost a given.
If it is useful at all on anything, for anything, then it is doing pretty well.
And, unless you are the sort of person for whom using another platform when necessary is no great stress, then perhaps you shouldn't even be looking at installing untested alpha-level software releases anyway.
EDIT: And I'll grumpily admit that this also bugs me because Windows is me favorite OS and Breach looks like a thing I would actually use. I hope its just circumstance. And not some goal in itself to not support it out of some far fetched principle.