>> I don't see a lot of debian apps doing better than facebook..

There's no possible scale of values that you could use to evaluate this comparison. It's not even apples to oranges. It's like saying Facebook is doing better than beagles. The things don't fit into the same category at all.

Here's a random example: one of the Debian apps is aptitude. It manages packages on the command-line. If you are a Debian sys-admin, it very likely enormously important to you. Nevertheless, it makes zero sense to say it's "doing better than Facebook." That sentence is just meaningless.

Facebook is doing way better than beagles! Beagles are predisposed to epilepsy; Facebook is not. Beagles did not generate $800MM in revenue last year; Facebook did!

I didn't know about the epilepsy. How sad.

Comparing Debian to Facebook in terms of revenue is literally senseless. Debian is a free - free as in beer, free as in freedom - operating system. It does not exist to make money. That was my real point since I suspected the OP meant "doing better" in terms of money.

According to some quick searching, pets and their food, etc. in the US in 2009 was a $45 billion industry.

Though eBay and Google were, Facebook was not part of the DotCom bubble.

Maybe I'm just overlooking it, but I'm not seeing a claim that Debian is or was more successful than any company that was founded during the DotCom bubble.

Nor do I make any claim about Debian...

You completely missed the point of the article.

Maybe I did, but you still missed mine and added zero additional value to the conversation. So let me spoonfeed you my point:

The OP claims that 99.99% of all websites back in the day were shit, just like 99.99% of all iphone apps today are shit. He then makes a remark that suggests that Debian is a superior platform because the number of debian apps is small/manageable.

Now, I pointed out that out of the vast majority of shit of the early web came a bunch of valuable companies, and I conjecture that it was in part due to vast number of websites were built that it became _more_ likely that the web as a platform would be successful and that some websites would become hugely valuable.

From that I consider it a risky bet to say that the vast number of iPhone apps in itself makes the platform inferior.

I then finished off by pointing out that no debian _apps_ that I was aware of had in any way become as successful as a bunch of websites I could care to mention. Maybe it was that which confused you - they are separate but related points.

I don't think he missed your point at all. Would you say that GCC as one of the debian apps others here have mentioned was less successful?

It arguably helps power Facebook, Ebay, Google, Amazon,... and any number of other of those sites you mentioned. Or perhaps Python? is it less successful?

Or perhaps you defined successful in terms of revenue only? In which case that's a very narrowly defined term and the case could be made that such a narrowly defined definition of success adds "zero additional value" to the conversation.

Dude that makes no sense, sorry. Re-read my comment; my point is: high number of apps does not correlate negatively with importance of platform or value of whatever is created on that platform.

But it doesn't correlate positively either. The 'article' is in response to someone claiming that having X apps created in Y years obviously means that a platform is 'more quality' than another, which is rubbish logic.

I respectfully disagree.

Define better. Is better defined in terms of who makes more money. It is true that apples done a phenomenal job of creating an ecosystem where developers get paid for creating applications. The OSS world lacks such an ecosystem, which is why OSS apps have not been able to "change" the world. btw included as debian apps - gcc, apache , virtually every compiler and programming language known to man. Lastly debian comes with the dignity of allowing you to program in a language that you want to. Much of this applies to all other free operating systems too.