Slashdot Mirror
If You Port It, They Will Come
An anonymous reader submits "An excellent rant^H^H^H^Harticle is up over at LinuxLaboratory.org, encouraging proprietary companies that make software for Windows to provide a full-featured equivalent for Linux. The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software. But many companies that port software to Linux will only ship stripped-down versions, leading to people not buying the software when they can buy the complete version for Windows, then the company not providing the software for Linux because it didnt sell. The argument is made that if the Linux version were equivalent to the Windows version, then people will buy it."
And in their next announcement, they encourage M$ to close shop for the betterment of mankind....
-Sean
... winex seems to ork pretty good for most of my windows needs...
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Yeah that's a great idea! I mean we should do this with games! Provide native linux versions! Just like that company Loki.... Wait a sec, they went bankrupt. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
S.t.e.v.e.
Really what would be nice would be if companies would include both Windows and Linux versions on the same disc. The two versions can share most of their data files and resources -- only the executable portions of the applications need be modified. If both versions sit on the same disc, would that not solve the problems and lower long-term production costs? Plus it would force companies to make the two versions more similar.
-James
Corel released a full version of Wordperfect 8 for Linux. How many people actually bought it? Apparently not enough to make them want to update it to the current version.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Take VMWare for example. The Linux version is not only full featured, but is actually more robust and rigged with stuff like SCSI emulation.
0x2b or not 0x2b, the answer is -1
I thought they said they went bankrupt because by the time they released a Linux game, it had already been out for Windows for a while and was simply cheaper to buy it for Windows at that point. If they were able to release at the same time (not their fault, as part of my understanding), they may well have no gone bankrupt (or lasted longer).
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Linux has how much of the desktop market ? 10% ?
Why would a company devote time and resources for only a 10% return where they could spend 100% effort into marketing to a 90% MS desktop market. Added to that whatever FUD that MS or such pulls out with GPL myths etc, and you will scare people away from developing for linux.
And at the same time, if there were all the good ports of software for linux, I think a lot more people would have switched to it.
A catch-22. I dont' know the solution
This article erroneously make the assumption that the windows version is good software :)
But I can't resist...
:).
for as long as you can get Windows to work, anyway
Do Linux-only users seriously believe this? I have never had a problem getting Windows to work (other than NT on shitty hardware, but I had that problem with Linux too).
I run WindowsXP primarily, but even when I was running Win98, I never had problems. Linux, on the other hand, ate my data one time (luser error on my part
Honestly, it's stupid comments like this that make it more difficult for me to get others to try Linux. If anything, Windows is easier to get working than Linux nine times out of ten.
Now, getting Windows secure on the other hand...
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
You mean like these guys who posted serial numbers for the Linux version of Opera here at Slashdot ? (at an Opera article some months ago)
And like these people who would rather download distro iso instead of buying a full distribution ?
And like these people who would use OpenOffice because it's for free instead of paying a very moderate price for SunOffice ?
There main arguments has in fact already proven wrong: Open Source users are unfortunately often cheap skates.
This "stripped-down" argument is just a bad excuse for warezed Windows programs.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
I can't help but get the feeling that companies like Real Networks, Adobe, Macromedia and yes, even IBM think that us penguins are all just about the cheapest birds on the entire face of the technology ecosphere, or whatever Microsoft is calling it these days (oh yeah, they think we're cheap, too). At the same time, Linux, one of the flagship products of the open source/free software movement, is such a buzzword that all of these companies - and many others - want to somehow associate themselves with the community. As a result, we see things like Real Player, Adobe Acrobat, IBM's ViaVoice and other popular programs being ported to Linux. This all sounds great on the surface, but truth be told, these products are only wannabe imitations of their fully functional cousins that work wonderfully under Windows (for as long as you can get Windows to work, anyway).
Since a large number of Linux users are at least a wee bit more technical than the average Windows user, we're all aware of this sort of strange 'fleecing-that's-not-really-a-fleecing'. We can't call it a fleecing, because we don't pay for a lot of this software. But we're aware that the Linux versions of many software titles just don't work like they do under Windows. In some cases, it's subtle. In other cases, the software comes with a disclaimer that "features x, y and z don't work under Linux". In some other extreme cases, the Linux version is so different that it's given a completely different version name to indicate that it's been stripped. Then the executives look down from their ivory towers and wonder why we don't buy their software. To top it all off, they use this sluggish market performance (read: poor excuse at an attempt to support Linux) as justification to discontinue their line of Linux products. In the meantime, they've gotten their good press, and placed a chip on the word 'Linux' on their Buzzword Bingo cards.
Well, this situation just sucks, and I'm here to tell the commercial software companies: 'If you port it, we will pay'. I talk to other Linux users all the time who say to me: 'If Company X ported Product Y, I'd pay full price for it'. I can't even begin to count how many copies of 'Dreamweaver for Linux' Macromedia would sell if it became available. If ViaVoice for Linux was as good as it is under Windows, I'd be using it now instead of typing up this story in Mozilla. I'm just not going to pay for a cheap imitation. I can get a cheap imitation for free! Freshmeat is loaded with, among many other wonderful things, free knockoffs of popular software, or cool little tools that you can combine to get the job done. I'll work through that before I justify making crap versions of decent software just so a company can say 'we support linux', when that's not really the case.
Linux, for me, is a choice I made. It's my operating system of choice. It doesn't mean that I'm cheap or poor or that I refuse to pay for software. It means that I have some shred of independent thought, and maybe even a bit of intelligence. It means I'm not stupid enough to pay $400 for an inferior OS so I can check email and surf the web when I can do all of that and 1,000,000 other things for absolutely nothing. However, if Windows was as fast, secure, stable and reliable as Linux, AND had all the applications under the sun, I'd probably pay for that, too. It's not really about hating Microsoft, though they're fun to pick on, and it's not about being unbelievably cheap. It's about having a choice and using the two brain cells I have to make and justify a decision.
So if I'm willing to pay for software, why not just run Microsoft on one of my 7 home machines and pay for software to run on it? Well, because Windows is *not* as fast, reliable and stable as Linux - and don't get me started on support for standards. What am I paying for then? The ability to run Dreamweaver? On an OS that, even after 17 years and countless versions still doesn't come close to being stable, reliable or secure (or fast, or standards compliant...)? If I did this today, I'd be paying $350 for Dreamweaver, and $300 for XP. That's $650 to run one piece of software.
If this sounds like I'm implying that I don't use Dreamweaver *only* because it runs on an inferior OS, then you're hearing right. For 75% of the things I'd use it for, like this article, Dreamweaver is overkill. However, in the penguin's constant pursuit of 'more power' and 'killer apps' and 'more features' and stuff like that, if it ran on Linux I'd buy it for the 25% of the time that it would actually be the right tool for the job (that, and I'd be basically voting with my dollars in support of Macromedia's move). This assuming it wasn't a cheap knockoff of Dreamweaver, of course... see above.
As with many things in the open source world, the "State of the Source" is changing. Software like the GIMP, Mozilla and Apache is getting better. Documentation for open source titles is becoming as copious as for Windows-based software. There are as many books on PHP as there are ASP. As many books on Apache as IIS, and they just keep coming (O'Reilly has one coming about 'Building Apps with Mozilla' - mmmmm). Paying for support has also become a very real, viable option for open source software. There are plenty of programs out there that install with a click of the mouse - user friendliness makes tremendous leaps daily. As the components of the open source software market begin to (more closely) mirror the rest of the market, a vendors *time* to market in this arena will become more and more critical. So I say to you, Macromedia, Adobe, IBM, Roxio, Real, Apple (Quicktime, Hello?): Port your stuff while you still have a chance to get my money. I'm less likely to *look* for a free alternative if I know I can get the real thing for my OS of choice (again, assuming it works). We're really not too poor or cheap to pay for good software. We're just too smart to pay for really *bad* software, and many of us are technical enough to know the difference.
Holy crappy developemental platform Obvious man!
.rpm only thing? Why aren't you taking advantage of XRENDER? I want my aa fonts, dammit. Where the ALSA version? It doesn't cut and paste right! (It never will. As long as gnome and kde doesn't work perfectly with each other, it ain't working on one of them.)
Which came first?
Poor Linux port sales or poor featured linux port? or...
Not so cool environment for commercial programs??
Let's face it. Linux programs are high upkeep projects. Wrote a motif software? People call it ugly. Wrote your own widget? People still bitch. Wrote it in GTK 1? Gotta upgrade to GTK 2 now. Nevermind all those bitching KDE users. Go ahead, write it with QT3 and the fancy KDE3 integration. I'm still bitching; I use windowmaker. It's x86 only? Mac linux people whine. It doesn't work with the latest glibc? It's redhat only? WTF is this
Think of all the varieties of linux. To cater to every single one of them out there, we need exactly what we have now: open source projects with volunteers and an active community. That doesn't sound like commercial software to me.
Jeez, why does anybody pay attention to such an ignorant rant? Wishful thinking is not news. So maybe Linux users are willing to pay for their apps. Big deal. So are Mac users, and we all know many ports that platform has.
Face the music: there are not enough users on Linux to justify having any developers work on a port of, say, Photoshop. It would take millions of dollars to port, and nobody will buy it. Given that Linux has maybe 0.5% of the desktop, and that maybe 1% of that will ever buy software that costs more than $30, I doubt the expense is justified.
How about promoting more useful projects like Wine/Winelib instead? A company with even marginal resources (Codeweavers) can do wonders with Wine, such as run MS Office and MSIE quite well. If some other company spent some more resources on improving it, it would be able to run 90% of the apps out there, including Photoshop and all the other stuff. It would also have a good chance of increasing that 0.5% market share to something more reasonable.
If you still don't believe me, just consider what would happen if Adobe ported Photoshop to Linux. 10 or 15 people would actually buy it. It would get press coverage. And then, nothing would happen and no other company will bother porting anything. Kind of like what happened to Loki.
error in that logic. People who use linux are too cheap to buy an operating system, they aren't going to pay for software. They will always seek out the free/open source alternative. Star Office now costs money, so a lot of people switch to Open Office. There is a group of wealthy/affluent/well off linux users who would pay for it. But how many people bought quake 3 for linux? I bet there are more people running quake 3 with wine than bought the linux version. And both version are the same game.
Linux users are a unique market in that they are a group of people who disliked the mainstream product, and rather than buy a different one, they made their own, and they share it with the world at no cost. No matter what you try to sell them, someone isn't going to like it and will make their own and share it. There is only one way to break into this market. Say a company like Adobe gives away illustrator/photoshop for free for linux. And charges for the windows version. For home users only (not businesses). And let's say these version were just as good if not better than the windows/mac versions. I guarantee a decrease in use of the gimp over a period of months. The gimp is good, just photoshop is better, its the best in fact.
The next step is to wait until people switch away from windows just to use the free and maybe better version of photoshop in linux. At this point release a new version with lots and lots of new features and upgrades, and charge 50$ for it. Not 500$. No home users will ever pay 500$ for software, they will just pirate it.
Now you have people at home using linux and and photoshop and adobe making money off of them. The same people will become used to linux/photohsop at home they will switch away from windows at work. Now all the companies will switch to linux/photoshop (even though photoshop for a busniness costs 500$) because its a better version of a program that is important to their business, and their employees are more proficient with the linux version. Even at 500$ photoshop/linux is cheaper than photoshop/windows.
Photoshop is just an example. And this is just one possible scenario. But I see it as a very easy way to get more linux users and better software for linux. As well as bringing much needed revenue into the open source community.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Users, including me, will pay for good software up to and no further than the point when equivalent, if not better, freeware/open source/[insert other it's-free license here] software comes along.
I'm a Linux user, and I wouldn't consider myself a cheapskate. However, while I spend a considerable fraction of my annual income on new computers, hardware and geek toys, the total amount I spend on stand-alone software is £0.00.
This isn't because I'm 'cheap'. Nor is it the case that I pirate software instead of buying it. The fact is, I don't need to buy software. Some packages, like virus scanners and Windows performance enhancers are obsolete on Linux anyway, while other programs like Microsoft Word have sufficiently powerful and free couterparts (I use TeX myself, but others say great things about OpenOffice).
At the end of the day, the only other killer app for my computer is Web browsing and e-mail, with which Mozilla and Evolution cope gracefully.
If other Linux users have a similar computing environment to mine, then I would go so far as to say that porting proprietary software to Linux, whether full-featured or cut-down, is redundant. This may not be what the new generation of younger (and often naive) Linux 'advocates' want to hear, but the truth is that Linux is doing just fine without proprietary consumer software. If you are trying to convince the software firms that there could be a flourishing market for their tools on Linux, you are probably not telling them the entire truth.
Only Linux users will buy it. I'm tired of #include linux/network.h, we need full, cross-platform Unix games. Not Linux-only.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
The problem that Loki faced was that people who are gamers have big beefy windows machines so that they can play the vast majority of games that Loki didn't port. There was no reason for a person to wait months just to get the Linux version when one could have the windows version immediately that would work on the system you already had.
Taking the example from the article, a product like dreamweaver is not prone to the whims of gamers. I, for example, develop exclusively on a linux system. To have to use any windows app is a pain in the butt because I either have to run the bloated VMWare, dual boot, or have another computer to work on. I tried to get Dreamweaver running under wine but that wasn't a success.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
We bought a couple of licenses for this and it sucks SOOOO much compared with the Windows version (which a workmate showed me on his laptop). No updates and a bloody WINE hack. Was definetely not worth the 350 EUR we paid for it.
So... how long is it until a freeware GPL'd clone of the software is created that is good enough for most people, causing no one to buy the comercial software? Too fast for comercial software to be profitable, and too slow for it to be around to stop people yelling about the comercial software not available. What I would really like to know, why don't some of these companies test their apps under WINE and put a big sticker on the box saying "WINE compatible" ?
Shoot Pixels, Not People!
At my company we conduct a yearly survey of our customers to find out in what direction to take our software development.
As soon as it became apparent that a large enough number was asking for Linux we ported the full range of products to Linux - no further questions asked.
(Of course it helped that we already offered our products for other UNIX platforms.)
I would expect other software companies to adapt a similar approach, but I know that - for whatever reason - many lack such a systematic market evaluation. This always puzzled me. Seems to me to be a surprising lack of business sense.
Linux users expend so much energy on LInux because IT COSTS MONEY, RIGHT?
I'm sure the software that COSTS MONEY will do GREAT on the LINUX system because it COSTS MONEY.
After using MS Office with both crossover and vmware, I would love to buy a native MS Office without the problems of the previous two (one is buggy the other is slow).
To paraphrase Tom Hanks as ``Forrest Gump'', "Buzzword is as buzzword does".
"At the same time, Linux, one of the flagship products of the open source/free software movement, is such a buzzword that all of these companies - and many others - want to somehow associate themselves with the community."
Yes. For marketing purposes. Not to actually *do* anything productive. And it's about time the Linux people wised up to this fact.
It's like the staunch Democrat, whi won't pass up an opportunity to get his picture taken with the President of the United States, even though that president is a Republican. Or the staunch Republican, who gets his picture taken with Teddy Kennedy, to put on his Christmas cards.
Do these people vote the way that the pictures, now on their desks, would imply that they'll be voting? No.
The entire point of endorsing something that's a darling of the trade press is to get trade press as a result of the reflected glory, that would be more expensive to buy elsewhere, under other circumstances.
-- Terry
I don't know about you but i feel that using Linux and free software for a long time has made me into a "cheap skate" when it comes to software. But it makes sense not to pay, since all good software is too expensive. Who do these companies think we are!
All of the responses below are about WordPerfect 9 for Linux, which was indeed based on Wine.
WordPerfect 8 for Linux, which was available at least a two years before then, was a native Linux application based on Motif and worked very well indeed. It's the same application released by Corel for a number of different Unix systems.
It was as cheap as $29.00 at the local CompUSA by the time WordPerfect Office 9 for Linux was released, and yet it still wasn't selling.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Programmers tend to use the word 'marketing' as a synonym for some combination of salesmanship, b.s., and evil intentions. In reality, marketing is about figuring out who might buy a given type of product and what combinations of product, product message, price, etc. would appeal to different groups of potential customers. Marketing is needed to figure out, for example, if Linux games sell badly because a) not enough users, b) the games released long after MS-Windows versions so potential customers already have a copy, c) games more buggy than MS-Windows counterparts, d) minimal distribution channel and advertising for Linux version, or e) Linux game lovers don't pay for commercial software. Someone who wants to answer this type of question needs to start with real research, not speculation. Doing this kind of research is hard because the answers may depend on posing the questions correctly.
...with his comments on why software vendors don't port to Mac: they can't expect to sell enough on such a minority platform to cover porting costs.
The author of the rant seems to assume that if he pays the same price for the linux version, and if linux users purchase it in the same proportion as Windows users, then the development costs of the Linux version will be covered. They won't be. Linux has less than 4% of the market share that Windows does for desktops. A company has to sell several times as many Linux copies, proportionally, the recoup its investment in the port; that's extremely doubtful, even if Linux users could be counted on to purchase it at all, which is doubtful to begin with.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
I would have bought a DVD player for Linux a long time ago if one would be available. Every time I go to CompUSA I'm looking for software for Linux but I can't find any. So I ended up not byuing any software in the last 3 years expect Red Hat Linux. So am I one of the guys who doesn't spend money for software? NO. If there would be something worth to buy for me at home, I would buy it even if it would cost some money.
You can grab it here:
m o- Linux.sh.bin
ftp://ftp.stenstad.net/mirrors/ut2003/UT2003-De
This is One of the excellent games that will be released for Linux. This one and whatever Carmack does are the flagships of PC first person shooters. And both run in Linux. Things are improving quick.
Go support them. I did buy my copy of Return to Castle Wolfenstein for linux. And I will buy Doom III packaged for Linux if they sell it. This way they can tell that there is a Linux market.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
I would have bought a DVD player for Linux a long time ago if one would be available. Every time I go to CompUSA I'm looking for software for Linux but I can't find any. So I ended up not byuing any software in the last 3 years expect Red Hat Linux. So am I one of the guys who doesn't spend money for software? NO. If there would be something worth to buy for me at home, I would buy it even if it would cost some money.
The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software.
Unless they are Linux users. I know so many people that would rather download RH for free (or buy the CD for $4 and get it shipped) then pay for it. The entire mentality is different. I'd rather this argument be made for OSX.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
No matter what, Linux will never be as popular or wide-spred as windows is. Users as a whole arn't neccassarly cheap-skates. We're all broke-ass and will pirate software. In either case, Linux will never be as popular as Windows. Therefore, propritary software companies will not make software for Linux. Linux in the world is considered an alternative. I mean, don't get me wrong, Linux is an excellent OS and etc. But there is no market place for Linux
> then people will buy it
Thus grabbing the Linux desktop market, with that huge 2%!
>Yeah that's a great idea! I mean we should do this with games! Provide
>native linux versions! Just like that company Loki.... Wait a sec,
>they went bankrupt. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
>
>
Loki went bankrupt because the market for PC Gaming is dying out. You're not going to get Linux users who are mostly people who have been turned off on the idea of PC Gaming to run out and buy PC Games.
I payed for Kylix 1 (equivalent to Delphi 5) and I will upgrade to Kylix 3 very soon.
Look at the story from a couple days ago -- people complaining that you shouldn't have to pay for a meeting room to hold Linux User group meetings. Every time a company tries to sell Linux software they get bashed for it.
You can get lower quantities of CDs (~1000) pressed with inserts and jewel cases for around a buck a piece, and I don't mean CDRs. Saving $1 vs. having a whole separate or multifunction development team to redo significant portions of the application....they would have to sell a ridiculous number of applications to recoup that.
It's not the material or recurring costs that are the problem.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
to include a few ^H^H^H^H in my post so that I can pass ^H^H^H^H as a true Lunux hax0r
As a BSD user, what really annoys me is the *lack* of support for non-Linux systems. A LOT of software is so simple that building it for *BSD should be trivial. Take the Flash plugin for example... No way would that be difficult to port for BSD.
/proc system you should be OK.
:)
Nearly all this software runs fine with the Linux emulation... But you know what? A lot of times the Linux binaries/libraries themselves are unstable, plus it takes up extra space.
On many fronts, BSD and Linux are similar. If you stay away from include/linux and the asinine
End rant.
The author makes some interesting (though debatable, and sometimes flat-out wrong) points, yet while he declares that "I'm here to tell the commercial software companies: 'If you port it, we will pay'," implying that this is targeted towards commercial software companies, the article is written as a rant (as the Slashdot article notes), which is definitely the wrong way to get the attention of commercial software houses. The author needs to make up his mind. What is the goal here? Is it to rant and rave about the lack of quality commercial software for Linux? If so, then don't try to represent the rant as a plea to ISVs to properly port their software. Is it a plea to these ISVs for proper and consistent support of Linux? In that case, the author needs to lose all the inflammatory points (the not-so-subtle insinuations that you're a moron if you use Windows, the incorrect information on the stability and performance of current versions of Windows, and so on). At least he didn't stoop to the level of slashbots and use such derogatory terms as "Windoze", "Winblows", "Microsuck", and the like. Had he used one of those, his credibility would've been completely shot, rather than just undermined and on shakey ground.
What this author really needs to do, if he cares about influencing ISVs to seriously consider the Linux market segment is do (or commission from a trusted third-party) a study on the purchasing habits of primary Linux users. It's all well and good to assert that people you know are willing to pay for software, but it's anything but concrete. I can make the assertion that Linux users I know are not willing to pay for software and it would be just as valid.
Author, make up your mind! Are you preaching to the choir, or are you trying to get your points heard? The two are different, and what flies with one generally won't fly with the other.
Just like id and just like epic games.
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
There's a million linux weenies?
Do you have some metrics to back that ridiculous claim up? You know, something that refutes, for example, that PC games sold $6 billion worth last year, compared to $5.4 billion the year prior (I use last year as a) I'm too lazy to look for stats, but I found those immediately, and b) that was the period in which Loki operated).
The reality of the situation is that they don't come. One shining example of this is the Quake ports to Linux.
A while ago me and a friend looked into the feasibility of possibly starting a non Windows game company where our focus would be on Linux and Mac products. It only took us about a day of research to decide this was a bad idea. One of the main factors actually was a Carmack post in a Slashdot thread where he mentioned that the Quake III Linux port only made enough to cover the port costs. I'm not Carmack, and only in my wildest dreams would I ever make a game that sells as well as one of his. If they can't do it, I think you'd be hard pressed to find some one who can.
Another factor was a discussion I had with member of a local studio about thier ports to Linux via Loki ( I am going to avoid naming the entities involved, sorry ). This game made them a ton of money on the windows and even mac versions, as well as got them some game of the year awards for a strategy game. When asked specifically about thier linux port I was told "It tanked horribly. We'll never make that mistake again." And the interesting thing is that the Mac version made money, but Macs don't have a whole lot more market share.
Maybe in the future we'll be able to try and look into it again. But right now it isn't a possibility.
Umm...no. I bought Corel Linux from CompUSA to try it out. It came with Wordperfect 8, and a huge manual.
I read through the manual a bit, and was slightly impressed. Then I realized that other products for Windows and Linux do the job better, so I didn't use it.
Abiword, Kword, and OpenOffice suit my needs, and I like it better. I also like the fact that I can compile it and upgrade it; I'm not stuck with version 8. I therefore have had no motivation to buy WordPerfect.
So here's the real thing:
1) Make a product for Linux in an area of the market that isn't already dominated by free software.
2) Make sure people actually use such a product.
Do you think Nero would have any success making CD-RW software in Linux, when CD-Record is already as capable?
On the other hand, adaptec would do quite well if they made quasi-binary UDF drivers for Linux, because nothing else (that works) exists.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
You go right on believing that.
Have you ever developed a serious cross-platform application that had anything more than a trivial user interface?
Dev & test costs for stupid and seemingly trival things like clipboard management and print preview will rapidly chew up any potential gain you might get from the vanishingly small market share.
Of course, if you're writing a free app, you don't do any of those anyway so...
The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software.
Whether or not MOST users are cheap skates is obviously debatable. It seems clear, for instance, that very many - if not most - copies of MS Word are not paid for.
But I really wonder how one can possibly try to make an argument that there is much of paying market for 'good' Linux software, in particular, when Linux and all the licenses underlying it has from the start been about being 'Free'.
I'm sure there are a more than a few people here who have paid for Linux software. But can there really be enough willing-to-pay users out there to support the often immense costs of porting software to Linux, when so few companies were willing to shoulder the risk of porting Windows software to the Mac at the Mac's market-share zenith ? Especially when you consider the Free Software manifesto that underlies Linux culture ?
Commercial software is an antithesis to the primary advantage of the Linux platform: openness. If you try to make Linux into just another delivery vehicle for commercial software you will fail because Microsoft and Apple are far better at creating operating systems for that purpose. Loki already bit it and many other vendor attempts to release commercial software on Linux have failed.
Linux is a niche market with a lot of users that will not pay for commercial software because the software is not worth the cost (monetary or freedom) to them.
Run Windoze if you want to pay money for software you can't modify. I use Windoze to run games, for example.
-Kevin
You don't see that much commercial software for Linux because Linux has many of the mainstream software categories reasonably well covered with free software. No, you don't exactly get MS Office or Adobe Photoshop, but you get applications that are functionally pretty close. It's primarily niche and specialty software for which it makes sense to make a Linux port--and that software is being ported--software like Matlab, design software, embedded tools, etc.
Macromedia Flash
Macromedia Dreamweaver
CorelDRAW
Adobe Illustrator
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe PageMaker
AutoCAD
Microsoft Office
I would buy them without even thinking...
Supose somebody offers you a coice between two brand new cars of the same model with the only quality of the radio being the difference. The car with the crap radio is free while the car with the Clarion head unit will cost full price. Which one will you choose?
./, there are always assholes in the world.
The free one of course! Why pay for something if the same person is also offering it for free?
As for the people who posted the Serial #'s on
Why not set a gaming library set standard that will be by default reverse compatible?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Linux will never have a chance on the desktop until it gets a new GUI, not the current mess it has now.
Barjam
As both a Windows and Linux user, i've always felt that there was no need to port software across the platforms. There is a way of doing things with windows (eg MSIE) and a way of doing it in Linux (eg Konqueror). I have never wanted MSIE for Linux or Konqueror for MSWin. As the two OSs are aimed at different groups of users, porting is unlikely to ever work - and nor will it be necessary.
Forgive the rant, but this NEEDS to be said.
:-/
Do you REALLY think that everyone running Windows has these same problems? Do you really think that someone at Microsoft sat there and said, "Well, you know what, maybe we'll just make life miserable for everyone. How about we program a BSOD to occur with random frequency somewhere between every 3 and 5 days, just so people don't get too used to that 'stability' thing."
Hello! Earth to Linux user! You have a driver problem. Most Windows boxes do NOT have these problems, and if they do, the person using the box calls up his/her computer person and it's fixed the next day. Go check your system log (you DO know where that is in Windows 2000, right?) and figure out what's causing the problem. Then troubleshoot it and fix it.
I swear, Linux has a problem with a driver and you guys are out there doing everything from installing driver after driver to freakin' recompiling the kernel. Windows 2000 has a problem and your first response is "Wow, Microsoft sucks! I don't know what to do! Um, how about I just complain on Slashdot about how much Microsoft sucks!"
Here's a hint: Learn how to troubleshoot your system (besides upgrading to Service Pack 2, because that probably won't fix a driver problem. You did listen to those warnings about installing unsigned drivers, right?) If you've looked at the system log and really can't figure out what could be causing the problem, go get on Google Groups and hit up the microsoft.public.* newsgroups. There are some really great people on there who volunteer their time to help you with problems like this.
So yes, that's my rant, and I decided not to post anonymously because I really think more people need to hear this. Mod me down as a troll or whatever, but you know if the guy was having the same problems with Linux, the person who posted the solution (even if it WAS just "RTFM") would get modded up.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
The problem lies with there are so many variables for coding a widely accepted Linux version. Do you use Alsa or OSS? Do you use GTK or QT or Motif? These are all factors that major companies don't want to deal with because it's too costly to acomidate for the various different Linux users.
Even if all Linux users went to a standard API it still wouldn't make a difference. For all of the little jobs we have open source projects that will do just fine: Abiword, Gimp and the like. But there is no equivilant for QuarkExpress for linux. Quark just rocks. Even if Express was ported to Linux, there would be a problem with fonts, or printing or something that isn't the same across all Linux boxes like Quark can expect from windows.
Personaly I would love to see Sonic Foundry's tools ported to Linux and have them work as well as their windows counterparts. Vegas Video rocks. It's a poor man's AVID. It's beats the pants off of any other prosumer NLE that I have tried. And it works with ACID files. How cool is that? But it will never be. WHY? Because Windows has made it easy to make multimedia application with their codec and DirectX APIs. Why hasn't linux done this yet? It wouldn't be that difficult and would open the barndoor for easily upgradable applications. I have been advocating this for years an nobody want's to hear it.
Thank you for reading this rant. You may now flame.
...Would be that if companies will offer both a Linux and Windows version, they should bundle BOTH ports onto one CD. This way the customer will get a version for BSD (Screw Linux) and another version for Windows on the same CD. This will encourage cross platform usage and encourage the use of BSD since they have paid for it. However, only ONE version can be active at one given time.
*Headline News* censorship shuts down the Internet! More at 6PM!
You have to offer what the customer needs. A linux version of Warcraft 3 is not what we need. Besides, the game companies should handle that. To bluntly say they can't is another discusion entirely. Loki tried to cash in on the idea that offering Linux specific versions would make them a profit. It want. The way the Unix user thinks is that it should come along with the Windows and Macintosh versions. Can't milk a cow unless she's had a calf.
:)
Corel's Wordperfect was nice. Many people cut their teeth with Wordperfect. Then society was saturated with the demand that all documents be in Microsoft Word specific format. Classes were taught at colleges pushing you to accept Word. Soon there was no more need to keep Wordperfect on the lab machines. Demand went away. Mercy sakes, software isn't a religion.
Maya probably sales good. I do not know how successful they are. Yet Maya is an industry standard for the Movie making people right? I think the real problem stems from the idea of squeezing everything you can out of your customers. Takes money to make money. Quality is another issue. Software isn't an assembly line. Because contrary to what the industry is preeching about code reusablity, deadlines, and specification you really have to be meticulous in writing software.
Each project needs to be built like a Bentley, by hand. I'm not sure they still build them like that though.
Just what was on my mind, feel free to bitch i know you will.
I buy games, lots of games. If I go to Best Buy to pick up WarCraft III and there is a Linux version, I will buy that before I buy the Windows version. Now I would hope they would both be in the same box. But the point is that I do buy software. As far as being able to download your own linux distro free of charge, I have more than 30, probably closer to 50 burnt discs that I have collected over the years of various linux distros. Well, I was in Best Buy recently and decided to pick up SuSE 8.0. I have never regretted it. I would argue that MOST of the software that end users use at home consists of browsers, cd-burning software, games. Who actually buys Norton Antivirus 2002? Most of the big name software under Windows is being used illegally. I have had discs given to me by Windows users with hundreds of the most up to date music programs, graphics programs, cd-rw programs, antivirus, publishing, etc. etc.. I use none of it. Most of it is overkill. Let's face it. Your average user is not going to pay $1000's of dollars for software when they can get it for free, and I mean the Windows version. If you are smart enough to use the advanced functions in these programs you are smart enough to do a warez search. Windows users are just as cheap. Most of the software is overkill. The money being spent on these programs is being spent by business and education. These groups use Windows MOST of the time. I don't know exactly why, but that is the way it is. As an example, I am taking C++ from a graduate of a school that I know uses unix, linux predominantly in their teaching. We are being taught with Visual C++ and a crap of a book that makes no mention whatsoever of anything but Winodws. Why? I don't know why. Maybe the software vendors don't make Linux versions because Microsoft would have their ass if they did. Maybe my school doesn't use Unix because they got some crazy discount from Microsoft and a lot of hand holding. It's a difficult subject. There is more to it than end users. A lot of it is political and if we have learned anythning about politics here in the US it's that money talks. Those that have the money call the shots. There is a company on the West Coast with A LOT of money and I think they decide what is put on the shelves and what we are offered, and don't give me that it's available for Mac shit either. Microsoft owns them too. ohhh, it's getting hot in here.
Score:-1, incoherent
I buy software. I like buying good software. I'd buy good software for Linux. I like free software, but I'm no zealot. If anyone could guide me to some good useful pieces of commercial software for Linux that a high school student could afford, I'd buy it, if I had a need for it.
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
...then why won't these companies make software on feature parity for other platforms, say, like Mac OS X or 9?
For the same reason that they don't do it for Linux users: we're cheapskates who don't want to pay for the labor of others, when it comes down to it.
Let's be honest about what this is really asking for...
Linux lacks serious regognition as a professional Plattform in large areas. That's a fact.
For example, with the Macromedia Dreamteam ported to MacOS X it's a shame they haven't started talking about Linux yet.
But there's another problem:
With the dotbomb just behind us, the market of software for Computer professionals is quite thin and I presume that lots of proprietary software isn't so much of a license to print money anymore. They're are 2 way's the future could go:
1. Eventually the software companies catch on and come out with software for Linux, or
2. OSS catches up more and more even in the Multimedia field and we've got nothing to worry about.
I actually would kinda like number 1 to happen early and the vendors getting the curve to change to a more service orientated culture. There is a lot of Software out there that would 'deserve' a solid plattform like Linux.
And, please, spare me the "Gimp is the OSS Photoshop alternative' crap. You don't no shit about what you're talking about.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I have bought more versions of linux then I have ever bought Windows. The problem with the boxed sets of distros is that 8.0 is in the stores and 8.2 is available as a download iso. The distribution network is terrible.
Another argument to look at the article is the commercial software which is available. For example take Vmware, everytime you build the kernel vmware flips out.
The problem with linux as a commercial alternative to windows is that there is no default configuration. When was the last time anyone compiled the OSX or windows kernel?
I have never left linux alone after installing it, have you?
Nope. Not every Linux user is too cheap to buy software. Lot's of people buy the OS itself in nice little shrinkwrapped boxes. Before I got broadband access a few months ago I'd purchased box sets of, I suspect, every RedHat version since 5.2, a number of SuSe versions, ditto Slack and Mandrake. I've also purchased a few commercial Linux apps, all of which fell into an immediate state of disuse -- they weren't good enough.
The problem with selling software into the Linux market, expecially desktop software, is the same problem that has afflicted the Unix market for more than a quarter of a century: There is no market. I.e., a typical Unix/Linux installation already has just about everything that a savvy Unix/Linux user wants in the way of software. Remember, this is the crowd that considers the editor space fully occupied by vi and emacs, and defines word processing as post-processing the code you added to your ASCII text.
If a company conjures up an honestly innovative idea for a piece of desktop software -- not a port, not an office suite -- that is worth taking the risk of paying people to develop it, they'd be foolish not to go after the largest market.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Actually, Adobe's Acrobat is quite full-featured in the Linux version. It supports CoolType and everything.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Since only 1 desktop in 400 runs linux, it just doesn't make economic sense for many companies to port to linux.
Maybe OS-X will help change this. If you're going to write something for BSD, you might as well port it to linux.
Might some[many] companies be unwilling to port those full-featured programs because having the full features would require being able to interact with certain code which they most certainly do _not_ want to look at, for fear of legal ramifications forcing them to open up _all_ of their code?
As more companies start to see linux as an oportunity, we will probably see these "stripped-down" versions more. In windows, the option is simply to pay a licensing fee, which cuts into your profits a bit, and then you can make sure your code works with the code that's there. The alternative, linux, has the potential to cut into Vastly More of the profits. A product may come out incredibly superior, but the makers dont really care about that if the superior product is a branch-off which they have no control over and due to branching make no money from.
I dont know specifics, just a theory.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
First we need a standard, good, fast, easy to program and unbloated windowing system.
Then someone should write a standard, good, fast, easy to use and unbloated rapid application development system.
Let alone the war between Gnome and KDE, and in my opinion none of them should win, the only rapid development system that deserves some credit in the Linux world is Kylix. Yeah, but Delphi 4 under a 333MHz 128Mb RAM Windows machine is still twice as fast than Kylix on a 1 GHz 1 Gb Linux box.
This make me think that we still have a hell lot of work to do before even thinking to be ready to port most Windows applications to Linux.
It was the dumb shit who ran the co. Thats why they went belly up.
As of January of 2002 the filter application used by Wordperfect 7 for Linux to output old MS word documents quit working. Basically it outputs a text file asking the user to send money to the now defunct company that produced the filter. I have since switched to OpenOffice.
I've said this numerous times before, and I'll continue to say it until someone at AutoDesk and/or Intuit listen up and actually pay attention...
When AutoCAD and QuickBooks have Linux versions available, I will gladly and immediately purchase them. Yes, they must be equal to or better than their Windows counterparts (well, duhhhh).
Does anyone from AutoDesk or Intuit even read these pages???
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
when it is made to run on an inferior OS. It is like asking for an expensive car stereo system for a go kart.
Ah but as long as these companies have the freedon to do what you want them to I guess it is ok.
The easier it is to warez something, the more people will warez it. If you open source a mass distributed piece of software it will be garanteed to be compiled by someone and be easy to get without paying. I know that I haven't paid a cent for any linux related software, and I never will pay for it, regardless of how great the software will be.
People rather upgrade their computers, buy something for their girlfriend (or if they are a girlfriend themselves, they probably will buy something for themselves;) j/k), see a movie, buy a DVD player, anything but pay for software.
Anyone who comes up with a good way to sell software, I salute you, but I think that something extraordinary needs to take place before people will fork(money); for software. Most of us grew up beliving "it isn't really stealing" and a lot of people still hold those values. That is what has to change, not versions of software for linux. It is no easier to develop large pieces of software for linux than any other platform.
What never ceases to surprise me in these articles/studies is that they're always published on a site with 'linux' in it's name. Why don't they publish them at msdn, Forbes, Time, New York Times or somewhere useful? :)
E
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
As with many things in life, your opinion will depend greatly on your perpsective.
;-).
To my knowledge (which may be biased living in a so-called third-world country where software is really expensive), the biggest customer of commercial software is big business.
Granted, quite soon open-source solutions will extend from the file/print/web/mail server to the desktop, and include the basics the average administrative user needs (email, documents, spreadsheets, simple databases).
But, currently there are no real solutions for the business-critical software that actually pays the bills (unless you do web design or server hosting, which may not pay the bills either).
Coming from a mechanical engineering background, the software that we spend the real money on (one license can often pay the entire balance of all the other non-technical software) are things like 3d associative Computer Aided Design Software, software for Finite Element Analysis, Computational Fluid Dynamics.
I imagine other high-tech industries will also have software they depend on, for which there is currently absolutely no viable open-source solution.
Fortunately, a lot of this software does already run on free OSs (notably all the CFD software I listed, and also most of MSCs structural analysis software), and Pro/E will apparently be coming soon. But, of course, there were not ports from windows, rather ports from commercial Unix (in many cases, so were the windows versions).
The problem for us is that we can't migrate until all the tools one person will use are available, since work often requires interaction between at least two pieces of software. But, presently Pro/E is the biggest piece missing, and we hope that this will be addressed by the end of the year.
Then, we only need to replace the stuff the use, but I think that's going to require a different kind of solution, unless it's easy to port VB on MSSQL software to linux.
Please, don't do other linux (and OSS) users a disservice just by stating that all your home computing needs are catered for by current OSS software, thus there is no need for proprietary commercial software.
Having more linux users around is a good thing, since that will mean that hardware vendors and website designers will have to take notice, and hopefully the number of HTML emails will drop
The quickest way to do that, is to ensure that businesses can migrate easily to linux/OSS without losing the functionality they currently have, at which point they will start to see the additional advantages they hadn't considered.
Somehow I don't see the Holy Grail for Linux as some company porting an existing product. The Real Holy Grail for Linux will be developed for Linux and in Linux. Some say it's slready here and it's called Apache. I still think the killer client app is waiting to happen. I just don't know what it is. Considering the way the industry is going, it way be somthing to attract customers scared of DRM and wanting to share files securely.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Yes, I am a pc gamer. I have no idea what your talking about. I play pc games everyday, I only wish more were made for linux. I'm stuck in windows. I have a windows computer, and a linux, problem is I have to beef up the windows to play games(I know I shouldn't be giving Windows the privilage).
Is an easy to use, easy to configure, telephone answering machine/ fax program and Quicken. I know some have used quicken under wine, but I've been searching for a long time for a Linux TAM solution, and the only thing that looks remotely close to what I want is PrimaFAX Pro . Has anyone used it? Is it worth $99 for home use? I can find zero reviews.
I'd take the free one, rip out the radio and put a new one in there.
200+ comments with the basic of subject of:
Why MS sucks and Linux Rulez"
or
"Why Linux rulez and MS sucks"
or
"I have a Mac, so screw them all"
or
"Who really cares, use what's best for what you need" - me
I have Excellent Karma, so what the hell.
Live web cams
What a bunch of completely useless, random and totally irrelevant thoughts.
Just release it as free software and someone will port it. Or better yet, hire someone to do that, too.
In my (limited) experience every Windows box does have those problems. Honestly I haven't seen one yet that could run for more than several hours, doing real world stuff without it's world comming to a crashing halt.
Oh I've tried. I've sent Windows boxes to many who claimed to be experts to have them fix 'em up. No dice.
I'll agree that it's not some conspiracy, just lousy quality control. The Linux advantage is that someone who experiences the problem has the option of getting under the hood and taking a stab at fixing it. Most Windows users will never have that option.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
it is not possible to create useful and featureful software for the linux desktop/consumer market. The missing tools and development frameworks mean that time to market for developing linux sofware prohibitive. Besides most applications are creaed in Visual Basic and machine converted to C++ for compiling ... a lot of software development companies have no one on staff that can type.
... and not even there either really since it doesn't support .NET ... face it kids Linux was cool and cutting edge for about 18 months now the game is over. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR COMPANIES TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE FOR LINUX - TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE: THEY DON"T KNOW HOW AND THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. LINUX IS REALLY HARD TO USE let alone develop for .... sheesshh those poor developers.
Besides, Linux is only for the server room
If there was a native Linux port of Nero, I know that I (and many people I know) would use it. As far as I've seen, none of the CD writer GUIs can compare with Nero. And I don't like the idea of burning from a console :p
Luke-Jr
I swear, Linux has a problem with a driver and you guys are out there doing everything from installing driver after driver to freakin' recompiling the kernel. Windows 2000 has a problem and your first response is "Wow, Microsoft sucks! I don't know what to do! Um, how about I just complain on Slashdot about how much Microsoft sucks!"
+5 Informative/Interesting
a good amount software is over priced. nobody wants to pay $20 for a shareware irc client, nor do they want to pay $20 for a 'simple' shareware game. if developers would cut prices by 50% or so, they shouldn't have too many pirating problems. if an over priced windows program was ported to linux and some of it's features are gone, do you really think a person is going to pay for it?
I can't believe that 1337 d0odz are still around^H^H^H^H^Hlive today. I bet you wear your pants around your knees and a cap on at the officially trendy and 'different' angle of 41.3 degrees. Come on people, show a little self dignity and stop acting like a bunch of parrots
And just think of all you chumps who sent them $40 to 'help them out'. Suuuuuuckers!
Several things help us to do this:
Because of these factors, we're able to release identical (functionality wise) versions in parallel... Our companies background makes support (important factor!) a non-issue as well..
Overall I would say that sales ratio breaks down as:
Windows:Linux:Solaris
75:5:1
Probably wouldn't make sense from a business perspective as a pure port if Linux isn't already a major part of your development life cycle... But we've got members of the team (including myself), who've used Linux pre 1.0 and really belive that the OS is superior to Windows...
Plug (our bug tracking software) is @ http://www.fastbugtrack.com/
Platform independent bug tracking software
Man for the price of photoshop you could buy a brand new PC, so why would a linux user buy PS? If he has the $, he will buy a new dedicatad new machine as well.
If computers cost $9000, then the OS is important, but if a PC costs $299, it doesnt matter so much any more.
(Btw these two minutes waiting between posts suck)
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The ^H^H^H thing was funny^H^H^H^H^H kind of funny, the first 10^H^H 2 times someone did it. Now it's getting really old.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
AMEN. Can you say OpenSource..
I was co-founder of a company and we attempted this. We wrote our (enterprise level) software for both Windows and Linux and distributed both via shrink-box and online purchasing. The absolute major issue that we had was that while the Windows customers were relatively easy to cut purchase orders for our software while the Linux people pretty much would do everything they could to get/use our software without paying. 90% or more of our Linux contacts wanted our software for free (whether a 'trial' version, a 'student' version, or some other equivalent version that would let them use our software for free). We had many tell us they would use an inferior product to ours rather than pay for ours, simply because it *was* free. They would sacrifice usability, stability, and functionality (which almost all our contacts agreed our product had in its favor) in order to use the free software. You can't start a business to design/develop/maintain a product for people who won't pay for it and expect to stay in business.
Our model was a relatively small up-front cost and most of the money we wanted to get was yearly support contracts (which is supposed to be the type that I see a lot of folks on this board expounding on the virtue thereof).
Back in the old days, when Windows was born, companies had to take a gamble and write software for windows, hoping that Windows would catch on. It's not like Windows was a hit overnight. So my point is that software companies need to take the 1st step and take a gamble, port to linux. People talk about Loki going bankrupt, that's one example and I'm sure there's just as many companies that went bankrupt writing software for Windows. Right now Linux use is growing in the corporate environment, some commercial software is going to need to be ported. I believe that Linux ports will start at the corporate level and continue onto the home desktop level. As far as Open Source and shaky standards, I think Linux has all the pieces, they just need to fall into place and lock like a puzzle.
Shit guys. They were saying the same thing about OS/2 for years before it finally died enough for me to move on. Of course, the difference here is that there isn't an IBM to kill Linux, so we can keep going as long as we like. But let's quit whining about the big commercial companies not supporting our little movement. That don't give a damn about us, and frankly and could care any less than that for them.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I think this is silly, even if every company offered fully functional versions of their software for Linux most people would still not switch. Face it, Windows and OSX are thousands of times simpler and easier to use than Linux...and most people are scared enough just to use their microwaves. Until Linux is intuitive and easy to install and setup the majority of people are not going to use it...especially not at home. It doesn't matter how much software is available...people are going to go with what's easy to use and right now Windows is easier.
Linux is lacking in CAD badly. If IMSI were to release TurboCAD 8 Professional for Linux, I would buy that soo fast...
And the other is games. With NVidia cards and kickass OpenGL, OSS sound, and SDL, Linux finally has what it takes to be a major gaming system.
I wouldn't say that Linux users are cheapskates, I'd say that most of them are just broke. I used it for years when I was a peniless college student. I couldn't really afford anything at all, and I was lucky to have a computer of my own to run Linux on.
Nowadays I buy Linux stuff. Next on my get list is Neverwinter Nights (when the client is released and not before) and probably Majesty. I already have a legit copy of about every other commercial Linux game ever made. My cdrom case looks like a Loki warehouse. The fact is, I have all the Linux games there are that interest me. I'm waiting for new ones now, and still playing the old ones.
Clickety Click
Aside from the fact, that on ext2 there's no need for it,
Um, do you know what a defragger does? Apparently not, unless you somehow think that ext2 "magically" defragments itself.
Honest to God, I've tried. I spent hours trying to get KWord to fucking print in US Letter format. It won't. No way, no how, it chops the top off with a huge bottom margin, or it chops the botton off with a huge blank top margin. And try printing with any other KDE app... Kate, the utterly useless text editor that won't save in ASCII, gave me about 17 pages of garbage when I tried to print "test" - uh, good job, guys, do you use printers at all? The printer setup is slick and easy, but that doesn't help much when the apps won't work. Abiword prints fine, but you have to type "lpr -P drivername" in a little box each session. Same with OpneOffice. How about a "configure printer" box where you only have to set it up once? I got Linux on all the servers, and was going to migrate the office stuff to work-alikes from our old Win98 stuff, but there are no work-alikes - the Windoze shit prints without any hassles, the Linux stuff puts up a hell of a fight for every damned page of every document. Jeezus, if you want world domination, you need to make this shit work in an office setting. Someone let me know when KDE gets their shit together and can print to 8.5x11-inch pages. And, KDE guys, lose the cutesy Knames for everything, K? When I'm looking for something like a calculator, I'm looking for something called "Calculator." The name Kate has no editor connotations at all, I have no idea what Noatun is about... it may be geek-cool to make up weird names for things, but it's hurting acceptance in real-world office settings.
Gnome may be the geek desktop of choice, but it's much worse than KDE for office use. Tip to Linux developers - if you're writing a business app, the Qt library is your friend. For real. Nobody sane is going to put Gnome on an office desktop in the real world.
> encouraging proprietary companies that make
> software for Windows to provide a full-featured
> equivalent for Linux.
Lessee, I work on software that make Windows act more like Unix.
I'm guessing no matter how good the code or what level of cheapness Linux users exist at, I'm not going to get a boat load of Linux customers willing to pay me for a bash shell, X Server, or nfs client.
Bullshit. You're clearly begging the question. Most Linux users I know spend a lot of money on their computers, software, books, and other things. Most people I know who use Linux do so because its the best tool for the job.
But how many people bought quake 3 for linux?
29,000, IIRC. Do some research. At a time when NVidia didn't have any Linux drivers, that's a good number.
Linux users are a unique market in that they are a group of people who disliked the mainstream product, and rather than buy a different one, they made their own, and they share it with the world at no cost.
I didn't make my own. I just used whatever was best for the job. In my case, that happened to be Linux.
No matter what you try to sell them, someone isn't going to like it and will make their own and share it.
That might be true, but will their own be any good? If not, I'll gladly pay for something better if its worth it.
In the last year, I've spent the following on Linux related products. In each case their were no cost alternatives, but I picked the best tool for the job.
I would much rather pay Apple for the pleasure of running Quicktime under Linux than pay Codeweavers for the ability to run a non-native version
But there is no Loki anymore. Alas.
I have four Loki boxes in my bookshelf. I've never bought so many games on any previous OS I've used. All the games I had were warez on Windows, because that's the way it goes. Of course I no longer have those 'cos I use Linux.
Are you mad? Quake 3 is a native port to Linux. That's right. Buy the Windows CD and install the Linux point release and copy the data over from the CD. Wow. Hard stuff.
Oh, same goes with the Linux release. In fact, it had a sticker on the tin that said that you can run it in Windows also - just download the Windows point release and install it and copy the data over from the CD.
I hate people who run to Wine without even LOOKING for a fucking Linux port first.
ext2 does not fragment as badly as some other file systems. For the Linux home user, there is no practical need for a defragger.
...most commercial Linux software fails or is never ported in the first place is because it probably isn't easily available to them or for some other reasons. First of all, it's not easy to get Linux software. Many places sell Linux distro's (usually Redhat or Mandrake, and every once in a while you'll find Suse around)... but how many places actually sell Linux apps? Only Electronics Boutique in my area sold Linux apps, and it was only for a short while. Really, the only way you can get a commercial Linux app is to order it off the internet. I don't buy it for the same reason I prefer to enter Barnes and Noble or Books-a-Million rather than Amazon.com... It is just much simpler to enter a store than to order something online, especially for me, since I'm only 17 and I don't have a credit card. Also, when I go buy software or hardware, it usually ends up being something that I have read about online and when I saw the product in the store, I just bought it. With buying things online, I have to get my dad's credit card numbers (which he has no clue as to whether the billing address is the warehouse, the store, the house, the post office box, wherever)... It is just way too much hassle, especially if you have to make a return. It just isn't worth it, even if it is Linux software. If there was something that I especially did want, then I would have already bought it. I think it's crappy that I have to pay twice for something that I already have (although in win32 form). I'd pay something like $10 for some Linux binaries (if it's at the store, of course), but I would not pay full price again for a game. Mac users would buy ports that were released way later because they can't have it on their computer simply because it wouldn't work at all, while a Linux user simply needs to see how it runs in wine or do a simple reboot into Windows (which takes only a couple of minutes). Also whatever is ported simply isn't appealing to me. Loki did a lot of ports, but they couldn't do everything under the sun, and so their selection was quite limited. I know a few games that I would have bought (I don't buy Windows software anymore), but they weren't ported during Loki's existance, and probably the only thing I would have bought from them was Descent 3, and I probably wouldn't have bought it anyway due to the reasons listed above. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament I can download binaries for, so I didn't give a damn about Quake 3 for Linux in the cool-looking tin box. Also, sometimes there are suitable substitutes. I don't need WordPerfect. AbiWord, KWord, or OpenOffice already suit my needs perfectly. I only touch word processing software when I need to type up something that will have bold text or a footnote. I don't need Photoshop; for when I need something with a little more power than MS paint I use GIMP. There is a lot of free software that may not have as many features as the commercial versions but are still useful, useful enough that while it may not be suitable for you but it is for me, so I don't go out and buy those programs. Also, in response to all those complaints about Linux users being cheap and saying that "hey, they won't buy distro x but would rather download it!", well, it only makes since that if you can legally obtain it for free, why not? Why buy Redhat 6.0 at the store, when you can get 7.2 (or whatever the latest version is, I don't know, I use Gentoo), for free? It's called being smart, I don't buy outdated distros with tech support I would never ever use. So really what I really want is a wide selection of software for Linux, that can be bought at the store, and the games that I really want sould ship the same day as the Windows version. Only happens in utopia, of course, and unless this happens, the commercial Linux software market will not do well.
The writer makes the faulty assumption that a GNU/Linux user will use the "best" software if it is available at a low enough cost. But the fact is that many GNU/Linux people make this choice for partly ideological reasons.
Although the free (speach, !beer) software is often "better" (technologically, sometimes user-friendly-wise) I (and many others) would not use an even better version if it were not free software -- even if it were available at zero price.
Richard Stallman would certainly talk about making a sacrifice or resisting the temptation -- and I agree.
I do not use Macromedias Flash player for Linux even though I miss out on a lot of stuff on the internet because it is not free software. I tell myself that if the source of information (website) cannot be bothered to make the information available to everyone in a standard format then I do not want part of that information -- I will turn to someone who cares about my freedom instead.
Summary: I does not matter if Photoshop is made available for GNU/Linux at zero price -- I would still not use it if it were not free software.
> (It never will. As long as gnome and kde doesn't
> work perfectly with each other, it ain't working
> on one of them.)
Oh please, not again! Clipboard has been fixed ever since KDE 3.0!!! How hard is it for people to remember that?!?!
I think that Linux users are MORE likely to pay for software packages they want than Windows users, Linux users actually care about licences, and in my experience Windows users do not (in a home enviroment anyway)
So you'd pay just for a frontend? Hmm...
Anyway, I think gcombust is pretty similar to Nero. At least enough for my tastes.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
If we could only get corporate America to see that there is more to Linux culture than the dangers and or merits of the GPL [start obligatory flame war here...] in reference to their legacy code.
OS zealotry aside, we're not just a "give it to us free, give us the source, build it and we will come" community.
Without reference to the benefits of the open source licenses which I heartily believe in, I for one would gladly put a rather large number of programming hours into a closed source project free of charge, even if I had to sign an NDA non-compete and everything, just to see the tools I would like to use on a non-MS box.
Say for example, a Linux version of a home-design product. Or the Lotus SmartSuite. Or a MIDI sequencer/music stenography program suite that integrates well. Or a voice control module, just to name a few.
My point, challenge, and question is, what do we have to do to get the 'zuits to listen when we say "let us help you succeed in a market unfettered by Microsoft?"
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
>Do you have some metrics to back that ridiculous claim up? You know,
>something that refutes, for example, that PC games sold $6 billion
>worth last year, compared to $5.4 billion the year prior (I use last
>year as a) I'm too lazy to look for stats, but I found those
>immediately, and b) that was the period in which Loki operated).
>
>
The market for PS2 games alone clobbers the PC Gamimg market. It's also where you'll find the vast majority of Linux users who still buy and play games. Toss in the various Nintedo game sales figures and you get a PC Gaming market that *NOT* attracting new customers and losing old ones at an ever increasing rate.
for those that lack the neurons, this is just another example of the kind of bs talk that kiddies pump out to 'look' cool and 'appear' tech savvy. When I was in school, we had idiots like this who wrapped their entire existence around ensuring hey had the approved car, stereo, music, clothes, speech, etc in order to 'look' cool. Sad thing is, I keep getting stories of how many of them have not changed.
... then it would be ready for linux, osx, solaris, ... without any changes !
... realy sad !
Sad to see that linux guru still consider Java as a foe and not a friend to slowly reopen the client software market
-4R34'.
And the sad part is that when I finally found out that Corel had draw available... I cant buy it... They dropped it like a hot-potato. WHY?? They wrote it, it worked, what the heck is so hard and expensive to sell bare CD's on their website? nooo, they just say "it's not offered anymore." which forces people to start looking for it elsewhere (Warez) I luckily found a legit copy on E-bay but what about the 30 others that I know that want it? Their only recorse is to find a warezed copy.
If a company makes an app for linux, they CANNOT bail on it in 2-3 months because of bad sales.
In today's day and age.. selling your old/no longer supported software on the website costs almost nothing and is nothing but a slower revinue stream. and if your product is for an operating system that isn't forced on the people that bought their computers, you really should be selling it longer.
Software companies have no idea how to sell software anymore... They need to pick up copies of Byte magazine and other computer magazines from 1979-1984 and do what they did.. Software doesnt have to be obsolete 10 minutes after you ship it... let it take time and mature and bring in alot more money.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
>If there was a native Linux port of Nero, I know that I (and many :p
>people I know) would use it. As far as I've seen, none of the CD
>writer GUIs can compare with Nero. And I don't like the idea of
>burning from a console
>
>
Xcdroast for Linux is far better than Nero. It's far more flexible and the fact that it uses opensource software like cdrecord for it's burning engine means that you'll never have to worry about having crippled versions of software like Nero dumped on you.
The ratio between console games and PC games is the same as it's been for years, with both making steady gains. I'm not claiming that PC gaming is more lucrative, but rather that the claim that Loki didn't do well because everyone abandoned the market is absurd: The computer gaming market continues to grow, not contract.
SDL, Simple Direct Media Layer isn't that at least three words? Err four
SDL rocks, and Frozen Bubble is too much fun
That's such a bullshit argument anyway. The Loki ports were almost all of older games, it wasn't clear that the Linux world either needed or wanted games, and, doggone it, if you had used Corel's "ports" you'd understand what was wrong with them. I'd be willing to pay for a nice graphics editing suit as long as it didn't suck.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
And never touch a native method, and you'll be fine.
My GUI programs run on linux, mac, and windows without recompiles or problems. They don't segfault either.
Java ownz joo.