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."

Comments

There's one

[Apreche]

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.

You all have the WRONG version of WordPerfect.

[aussersterne]

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.

Re:i dunno about this...

[johnnyb]

packeteer:

No, sorry your wrong. Winex was forked because the makers are under NDA.

***

Nope. Sorrry. The fork was done simply to make money. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is the truth.

***

packeteer:

It was forked because the old WINE license required all source to be given away.

***

Again, incorrect. The _old_ WINE license is BSD, which means anyone can use it for any reason.

***

packeteer:

Winex DOES charge money but not for all things. If you dont subscribe you can download the CVS version which contains no copy-protection code and is pure source.

***

Thus destroying your original argument. Remember, the source they give is under the _Alladin_ license, not the LGPL or BSD like Wine (Wine's new license is the LGPL, although I believe they are still maintaining a BSD tree).

***

packeteer:

So really in my opinion Winex is the best thing since emacs (an invention so useful it can almost replace sliced bread but i think thats a few patches away) ;)

***

I won't disagree with you there. Actually, I think the release of Blender as open-source might be a _bit_ cooler, but maybe not. Also CrossOver Office is pretty cool.

Re:too-GPL

[spitzak]

The problem with that theory is that there is no GPL code needed to write the program. You are free to use LGPL libraries all you want, and except for a single example where RMS is being an ass (readline) the makers of the code have done a very good job of putting things that are useful for other software under the LGPL while GPL'ing end programs that cannot be used by another program except to duplicate the function.

You can also read every detail of every part of Linux and every GPL program and use this knowledge to improve your program so it works better with them and you still are not violating any licenses.

Any program with "same functionality as the Windows version" that is violating the GPL means the Windows version is violating the GPL, too. If it is not, take the non-violating code out of the Windows version and put it in the Linux one!

The main reason functionality is missing is due to proprietary libraries on Win32, actually. If you can't get the source or you are not allowed to port the library to Linux, then you have to cut the functions out.