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
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
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 :)
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
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
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
i am not making this up when i say this - i can tell exactly how long ago i got my new linux box: i type 'uptime' (roughly 73 days now).
i've never met a windows machine in my life that can compete with that.
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
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
Maybe the author meant to say "as long" as you can keep Windows running without a reboot, but the statement is ambiguous.
:), which as far as a user is concerned is the same as a reboot because they have to close all their open apps, save their data, etc.
:) My last Linux install was only rebooted twice for the whole 6 months I had it on that box, but I must have had to restart X twice per day thanks to shitty software. I don't blame Linux for this, anymore than I blame MS when "Dave's Crappy Freeware Tool" takes down explorer.exe.
In any case, when I run Linux I find I regularly have to restart X (thanks to shitty apps I tend to gravitate towards
And don't get me started on X crashing
The only reason I reboot WindowsXP is security patches. The only place that it really bothers me that I have to reboot a box is a production machine at work (which is one of the reasons I feel Linux is superior as a server).
My point is that for Joe User, getting Windows up and running is easier - as is maintaining it (major system failures notwithstanding, which are hard to deal with on any os). Anyone that says otherwise sounds dishonest and hurts the credibility of Linux.
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
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.
A company has to sell several times as many Linux copies, proportionally, the recoup its investment in the port;
You're assuming the development costs are equal for both platforms. They might not be. Much of the logic/flowcharting/data structure thinking/planning will be done once, regardless of code implmentation. The coding *shouldn't* be so time consuming relative to the planning that the planning is totally insignificant.
creation science book
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!
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.
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!
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
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...
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
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.
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
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
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.
Maybe OS-X will help change this. If you're going to write something for BSD, you might as well port it to linux.
As a Linux and occasional Mac user, I think that this would be neat if possible, but really, most of the work in porting a typical app is in the user interface, which would be completely different between Linux and OS X.
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.
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!
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
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
> (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?!?!
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...
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.
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.