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."
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
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.
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
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
Perhaps AbiWord, KWord or OpenOffice Writer work for well you, but none of them even begins to compare with WordPerfect for professional writers or secretaries -- give me a break, the functionality simply isn't there!
The area of professional-quality office software is not dominated by free software in Linux -- frankly, there isn't any! OpenOffice is finally starting to come close with the 6.0 release, but still suffers on the stability and format compatibility front. I still use WordPerfect for Linux every day and crossover office when I need to use MS Office.
There are no Linux equivalents. For a big writing project or serious work, give me WordPerfect 8 over AbiWord or KWord any old day. AbiWord and Gnumeric? KWord and KSpread? I repeat -- give me a break. Obviously you are a computer professional and not a professional in some other industry... a word processor is a word processor is a word processor, but there are inifinite shades of nuanced difference between bash 1.14 and bash 2.0, right?
And by the way, I'd buy Nero for Linux in a heartbeat.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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!
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.
Engineering and the Ultimate
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.