Maybe we're being just a bit harsh about these guys? I mean, isn't it plausible to get something running (if it's fairly client-browser sensitive) on one platform first? Then maybe move to the others?

There is an awful lot of stuff out there that is highly dependent upon "plug-ins" that they want you to just blithely download from the Internet ... what am I supposed to do, trust them? ... and without that bag of software on the system it just doesn't work. And, unless you happen to have the one version of Microsoft (Of Course) Windows that the developers managed to test it on ... it still doesn't work!

So what do I do with that stuff? Simple: I don't!

Heck, even if I did have the MS(OC)W Version "Latest and Greatest," I still wouldn't do it. Just look at how many people "trusted" Sony Music, and wound up with an un-installable friggin' root kit!

So, those guys who can't run software that I am able and willing to run, spend a lot more money on whiz-bang stuff than they ought to, and still don't get any dollars out of my pocket. Reckon that's their problem, though, not mine: I Am The Customer.

And I run Linux.

Sure. Well, unless your name is Microsoft. Then it is evil.

Do you all remember google's summer of code? They were all about premoting open source. yet when it comes to google making a linux native version of their software, they dont do it. If im not mistaken, its not as if they dont have the ability or resources to - theres an option to use openGL for rendering, so surely its mostly just a case of making its other features linux compatible?

I totally agree with you, Everal. I haven't heard of google earth, but I'll try it.

I feel offended when websites say things like "if this website doesn't work, upgrade your browser. Here are the only two links you will need: microsoft.com/..., netscape.com/...", or when a website with pdf files says "These pdf files require adobe software." I mean, what part of public domain do they not understand?

Yes, google has every right to write their software to target Windows. Plenty of other Windows and Linux developers do the same. Some people on this thread don't seem to understand that if a developer is going to target an OS for their software, they should say what OS their software works on. Not say that it doesn't work on Mac, but imply that it will on every PC based OS, if it doesn't. If it works only in Windows, they should say so, and would have to mention Windows to do that. At least that is the opinion that the OP expressed, and I agree.

On the same note, nobody should be saying that adobe software is required for pdf files. It would be nice if those websites would link to adobe as well as a few other pdf readers, but it is a lie and a demonstration of their ignorance when they say something like, "adobe software is required". Webmasters who write their websites for Internet Explorer with Medium Security running as administrator on Windows XP should be shot.

Stupid people offend me. It is their right to be stupid (to an extent), but it is also my right to (want to) kill them.

Hey guys ... I hope I can make an end to this flameware - I just checked out the website of Google Earth and was astonished to see them already offering a Macintosh-Beta-Version for download (sorry, they won't let me post the link coz this is my fist post in the Forum)

Anyway, Google DOES seem to MEAN it when it sais, it wants to make GoogleEarth available for Mac (and in longer term perhaps also for Linux)

Yes, it is there! And it works great.. Let's hope they make a Linux version soon.. Now that they made a MacOS port, it should not be long

First of all as said about it says "PC" not windows and it stated that it excluded mac out, not linux. Secound of all because I can now post links let's not forget how much google and microsoft hate each other

I think that we have no idealogical enemy in Google, who runs their entire operation on Linux ... but we do have a demonstration of the quandary that faces the software development community, and Microsoft in particular.

Google Earth, as deployed now, as developed with Microsoft's software development and deployment systems, runs only on (current) Microsoft platforms ... and this is rightfully perceived as being a problem. A rather substantial and growing segment of the PC market -- the Linux users, the Macintosh OS/X users, both of these being "Unix-based" users who can quite easily share software among themselves -- is locked out. Try as they might, Google cannot sell to them. Not without spending millions of dollars on re-engineering the code (which, for all I know, they might well be doing).

We can't afford to be doing two parallel development-efforts to get to the same goal-post. We all have to be playing the same game, the same way, and spending the millions of dollars that we do spend every year on software development, doing the job once.

Of the two, the Linux/Unix community offers considerably more long-term promise. Not Windows. Windows is proving to be an immensely complex, extremely bloated system that has very poor backward-compatibility even with itself. It's published by one monolithic company that is, more and more, long on promise and short on delivery. And, to top it all off, extremely hardware-constrained.

These limitations point to only one inescapable conclusion, as I see it, and the garland will go to the one who grabs it first: in the long run, Windows will lose. Not the operating-system per se, but rather the whole concept of a "OS-dependent software development strategy." We can't afford to write software that is "locked in" to a single platform any more.

this is a very good topic. It does kinda make me feel ill will against google but they are a public company and the bottom line is making money for it's investors. stock goes up people get happy. the fastest way to grab attention is to market it to windows first.

they could've however coded it for other *nix and osx at the same time. maybe they need a few million emails asking them if they will code a linux version

IIRC, I recently read an article on slashdot about Google collaborating with CodeWeavers to make a linux compatable version of Picasa. Which means they're trying to make some of their stuff compatable. Which then, could mean that Google Earth may be coming around, eventually

Just to clarify - Linux format magazine has stated:

"In other Google news, the company has released a version of Google Earth for MAC OS X, and a spokesman suggested that a Linux version is nearing release".

(Issue 78 page 11)

Google earth through wine

There have been over 40 posts regarding this topic, and nobody has mentioned this Linux-compatible alternative yet...

http://www.flashearth.com

Mmmmm - requires Javascript and flash.

Another one bites the dust ...

Why? I'm sure you can install/enable both on your system.

Any see Google Mars?