5 ms·

I think it boils down to what he was talking about at the end: Linux users need to be willing to buy software, and Linux software developers need to be more bus

I think it boils down to what he was talking about at the end: Linux users need to be willing to buy software, and Linux software developers need to be more business savy.

sandGorgon 16y ago
upvoted. We buy our linux-based office software (we do NOT use OpenOffice). There should be more paid-for apps that are of much better quality than what's available. I believe that Linux (or some distro) should incorporate licensing/DRM into the OS itself - which you have the freedom to turn on or off. More or less, it means an app store, but indie developers will not have to worry about building licensing into their software.
- drivebyacct 16y ago
  What? Microsoft and OS X have rich libraries of cost-based applications and they don't require any licensing or DRM embedded in the OS. Why on earth would an operating system that hinges itself on openness take a more Draconian step than any other major OS distributer has (mobile OSes aside)?
  - sandGorgon 16y ago
    Because you need to jumpstart the paid-apps ecosystem. I am not talking about approval processes, but something more on the lines of an Android app store than an iphone one. What you get by that is : 1. signed software 2. small time developers dont have to worry about licensing 3. Distribution channel 4. Payment gateway The windows or the mac system was never built on the basis of a package management system, which Linux inherently has. Dont we _already_ have an app store in Linux? Only, there is no way for a developer to make money off Apt or Yum.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      Lindows/Linspire actually had an app store back in the day, where developers could package and distribute commercial software. It used apt as its backend. Since that didn't work out, it looks like the next best alternative is something like Steam. It seems highly possible that Steam will be released for Linux (a port already exists). Valve could be persuaded by enough software developers to add non-game software to their system. Neither system required/requires DRM to be integrated into the OS.
      - sandGorgon 16y ago
        No it does'nt, but it is DRM all the same. If you were an app maker, why would you prefer a closed source DRM, than an open-source security model in the OS ? I just dont get it: everyone likes Steam, but they dont like DRM in the OS - is it something so distasteful that a computer gets tainted by built in DRM ? And then you will find someone who gets pissed off with Steam, goes looking for alternatives... and the consumer ends up with 10 different kinds of app-store software (on Windows, I have Direct2Drive, Steam and StarForce for different games) I dont know how it can be managed with a built-in DRM, but I suspect something like a PPA (Personal Package Archives) would enable everyone to self-publish their software, yet still be part of a web-of-trust model.
        nitrogen 16y ago
        I think that many of us who don't want DRM in the OS believe in a concept of layers of separation. The core OS should be as widely applicable and as open as possible, while any restrictive technologies or licenses should be in as high a layer as possible, so that they affect only those people who want/need them. The benefit to doing things that way is that all layers become easier to maintain and less prone to failure (DRM being used to blacklist hardware drivers would be considered a failure in this case), because each component in each layer only contains those things necessary for itself and the layers above it. DRM especially should be in as high a layer as possible, or ideally not present at all, so that its casualties are minimal if the authentication servers disappear or the company holding the keys becomes malevolent.
- usaar333 16y ago
  What office software do you use btw? I've been looking for some linux-based powerpoint replacement (impress does not cut it)
  - sandGorgon 16y ago
    Softmaker - mind you that we need it mainly for the spreadsheet, but I think the presentation software is also quite decent.Note that they dont have very good compatibility with ODF (sigh...). The license is extremely liberal.
houseabsolute 16y ago
The open question is why anyone would buy software for Linux. The key differentiating factor for _most_ people who use it is that it's free (as in beer). There are two other operating systems that for most people work better than Linux. It's hard to see how you can ask people to pay for software now in the hope that it will eventually be good. I'm sure some people will buy software because it's the Right Thing To Do, but considering the population that selects Linux and their reasons, it's hard to picture a big enough market there to draw really good consumer software developers. An interesting business question.
- theschwa 16y ago
  I completely disagree. I use Linux because of how well it works and would gladly pay money for it, and I think most long term Linux users stick with it because of how well it works. In fact, most Linux users I know purchased a computer with Windows already on it, and completely wiped it off to put Linux on there. So they've already 'payed' for Windows, but use a different OS anyways. I'm also not saying people should pay for bad software in hopes that it will become good. I'm saying that we need to make it easier to pay for software so that software that good that already exists can be purchased. Android is an example of how Linux and payments can work. An open source operating system with many free pieces of software, but an App store where products can still be purchased.
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    > would gladly pay money for it So, have you? If so, how much? I've spent $300 on software for my Windows computer in the last year, and another $100 on software for my Mac. > So they've already 'payed' for Windows, but use a different OS anyways. Granted, but I think far fewer people would if Linux wasn't completely free. If Linux distros were able to enforce a charge of $5 per download, I suspect consumer adoption would halve or worse. > Android is an example I'm not sure that's the best example considering the trouble many developers are having making money on Android. But even if we go with that, there are probably already far more people carrying Android handsets than are using Linux on the desktop. More than that, there's a question about what type of people and for what motivation people buy Android phones. Notice how I said "buy Android phones," not "install Android". People buy Android phones explicitly because you can easily buy desirable apps on them, unlike so many other phone OSes. But the operating system is not free like beer in the sense that it is easily downloaded and installed on a device people already have on hand. You still in most cases have to go out and buy the device. So it does not suffer (as much) from the selection effect I described earlier. (The evidence I've seen so far does suggest that its demographics with respect to paying for software deviate significantly from those of the iPhone.)
alecco 16y ago
No, thanks. IMHO, the Linux project sold its soul and that is the current problem. In particular, almost every major developer of Linux is in the payroll of some software giant with interests in only running Linux servers. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't fit what I'm looking for running locally.

I think it boils down to what he was talking about at the end: Linux users need to be willing to buy software, and Linux software developers need to be more business savy.

sandGorgon 16y ago

upvoted. We buy our linux-based office software (we do NOT use OpenOffice). There should be more paid-for apps that are of much better quality than what's available. I believe that Linux (or some distro) should incorporate licensing/DRM into the OS itself - which you have the freedom to turn on or off. More or less, it means an app store, but indie developers will not have to worry about building licensing into their software.

drivebyacct 16y ago
What? Microsoft and OS X have rich libraries of cost-based applications and they don't require any licensing or DRM embedded in the OS. Why on earth would an operating system that hinges itself on openness take a more Draconian step than any other major OS distributer has (mobile OSes aside)?
- sandGorgon 16y ago
  Because you need to jumpstart the paid-apps ecosystem. I am not talking about approval processes, but something more on the lines of an Android app store than an iphone one. What you get by that is : 1. signed software 2. small time developers dont have to worry about licensing 3. Distribution channel 4. Payment gateway The windows or the mac system was never built on the basis of a package management system, which Linux inherently has. Dont we _already_ have an app store in Linux? Only, there is no way for a developer to make money off Apt or Yum.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    Lindows/Linspire actually had an app store back in the day, where developers could package and distribute commercial software. It used apt as its backend. Since that didn't work out, it looks like the next best alternative is something like Steam. It seems highly possible that Steam will be released for Linux (a port already exists). Valve could be persuaded by enough software developers to add non-game software to their system. Neither system required/requires DRM to be integrated into the OS.
    - sandGorgon 16y ago
      No it does'nt, but it is DRM all the same. If you were an app maker, why would you prefer a closed source DRM, than an open-source security model in the OS ? I just dont get it: everyone likes Steam, but they dont like DRM in the OS - is it something so distasteful that a computer gets tainted by built in DRM ? And then you will find someone who gets pissed off with Steam, goes looking for alternatives... and the consumer ends up with 10 different kinds of app-store software (on Windows, I have Direct2Drive, Steam and StarForce for different games) I dont know how it can be managed with a built-in DRM, but I suspect something like a PPA (Personal Package Archives) would enable everyone to self-publish their software, yet still be part of a web-of-trust model.
      - nitrogen 16y ago
        I think that many of us who don't want DRM in the OS believe in a concept of layers of separation. The core OS should be as widely applicable and as open as possible, while any restrictive technologies or licenses should be in as high a layer as possible, so that they affect only those people who want/need them. The benefit to doing things that way is that all layers become easier to maintain and less prone to failure (DRM being used to blacklist hardware drivers would be considered a failure in this case), because each component in each layer only contains those things necessary for itself and the layers above it. DRM especially should be in as high a layer as possible, or ideally not present at all, so that its casualties are minimal if the authentication servers disappear or the company holding the keys becomes malevolent.
usaar333 16y ago
What office software do you use btw? I've been looking for some linux-based powerpoint replacement (impress does not cut it)
- sandGorgon 16y ago
  Softmaker - mind you that we need it mainly for the spreadsheet, but I think the presentation software is also quite decent.Note that they dont have very good compatibility with ODF (sigh...). The license is extremely liberal.

houseabsolute 16y ago

The open question is why anyone would buy software for Linux. The key differentiating factor for _most_ people who use it is that it's free (as in beer). There are two other operating systems that for most people work better than Linux. It's hard to see how you can ask people to pay for software now in the hope that it will eventually be good. I'm sure some people will buy software because it's the Right Thing To Do, but considering the population that selects Linux and their reasons, it's hard to picture a big enough market there to draw really good consumer software developers. An interesting business question.

theschwa 16y ago
I completely disagree. I use Linux because of how well it works and would gladly pay money for it, and I think most long term Linux users stick with it because of how well it works. In fact, most Linux users I know purchased a computer with Windows already on it, and completely wiped it off to put Linux on there. So they've already 'payed' for Windows, but use a different OS anyways. I'm also not saying people should pay for bad software in hopes that it will become good. I'm saying that we need to make it easier to pay for software so that software that good that already exists can be purchased. Android is an example of how Linux and payments can work. An open source operating system with many free pieces of software, but an App store where products can still be purchased.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  > would gladly pay money for it So, have you? If so, how much? I've spent $300 on software for my Windows computer in the last year, and another $100 on software for my Mac. > So they've already 'payed' for Windows, but use a different OS anyways. Granted, but I think far fewer people would if Linux wasn't completely free. If Linux distros were able to enforce a charge of $5 per download, I suspect consumer adoption would halve or worse. > Android is an example I'm not sure that's the best example considering the trouble many developers are having making money on Android. But even if we go with that, there are probably already far more people carrying Android handsets than are using Linux on the desktop. More than that, there's a question about what type of people and for what motivation people buy Android phones. Notice how I said "buy Android phones," not "install Android". People buy Android phones explicitly because you can easily buy desirable apps on them, unlike so many other phone OSes. But the operating system is not free like beer in the sense that it is easily downloaded and installed on a device people already have on hand. You still in most cases have to go out and buy the device. So it does not suffer (as much) from the selection effect I described earlier. (The evidence I've seen so far does suggest that its demographics with respect to paying for software deviate significantly from those of the iPhone.)

alecco 16y ago

No, thanks. IMHO, the Linux project sold its soul and that is the current problem. In particular, almost every major developer of Linux is in the payroll of some software giant with interests in only running Linux servers. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't fit what I'm looking for running locally.