7 ms·

> If only Linux users would pay for desktop software I'm happy to pay for lots of things. But I'm not interested in paying for crappy software. I wouldn't, for

> If only Linux users would pay for desktop software I'm happy to pay for lots of things. But I'm not interested in paying for crappy software. I wouldn't, for instance, pay for Microsoft Word.

hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
Microsoft Word is a more complex piece of software that delivers more value to more businesses and individuals than (virtually?) anything that anyone on this site has ever made. It amazes me how little people value other people's work on this site.
- smolder 8y ago
  You are right, Word is impressive in the same way a big factory that assembles complicated products is impressive. It's an impressive amount of work, it's complex, and it gets a lot done. But looking in the factory, you can see some things it does in house that are better left to other facilities, some machinery that is overcomplicated or inefficient, it pollutes more than it needs to, etc. But we need to hit those production targets. Changing things up would be expensive, so on we go... providing value to those who depend on it.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  Microsoft Word (and word processors more generally) are horrible environments for creating any sort of content in. They're great for bureaucrats who like to "do lots of work" without producing anything of use. I cringe every time I have to deal with a Word file.
  - hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
    It sounds like you aren't very good at using Word. Imagine if someone said "I cringe every time I have to deal with a command line."
    - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
      I used Word for a long time, and learned "advanced features". It just sucks compared to real content production software like LaTeX.
    - ummonk 8y ago
      Well, a classic command line is a very poor interface to the computer. It's only good because every other interface is so bloated and indirect.
      - hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
        A well-executed command line is a precise and efficient way to get work done. It is invaluable, and its value is unrelated to problems present in other interfaces.
    - techntoke 8y ago
      I can use Word, but I prefer to use markup formats or LibreOffice. Why wouldn't I want a piece of bloat that doesn't even work on my OS natively?
    - rrix2 8y ago
      > Imagine if someone said "I cringe every time I have to deal with a command line." People do say this though. People have personal preferences for the software they have to use all day, and most of the time people don't agree on what that software is. And most of those decisions are driven by the type of work people do. I don't expect a lawyer or a business analyst to use command line interfaces, and I don't think they expect software engineers to code in Word...
      - hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
        People do say this though And the other people, who were discussing the command line, ignore them. The point is that you can't really criticize something when your criticism seems to boil down to "I don't understand this". And who said anything about writing code in Word? What are you on about?!
  - com2kid 8y ago
    I customized Word with a bunch of Macros, wrote a 300 page educational book in it. I had no issues and was quite productive. I may have been more irritated if I had needed to do a bunch of complicated layout work. For the last year Word has actually supported LaTeX for math equations, see https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/murrays/2017/07/30/latex-math-in-office/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/murrays/2017/07/30/latex-ma... But aside from that, Word is great for short and medium length documents, especially ones that need group editing. Put a Word file up on Sharepoint, and now there is user friendly change tracking and commenting. I've written multiple technical specs in Word, it serves as a great way to collaborate, so long as everyone has bought into the ecosystem.
    - type0 8y ago
      > so long as everyone has bought into the ecosystem. Well that's the problem isn't it, every potential collaborator who can't or won't buy it will be shunned.
      - com2kid 8y ago
        If you are at a company that uses Sharepoint, everyone already has bought in. The same argument can be made for any piece of software. People have to buy in, even free software requires taking time to learning it vs whatever existing workflow is in use (if any).
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    I disagree... for the purpose of editing documents from a nontechnical mindset, Word is fine.
    - seabrookmx 8y ago
      Main point being nontechnical mindset. OP points out LaTeX, but for non-technical and non-academic people, this is a non-starter. Word has an extremely low barrier to entry so it makes tons of sense for the general public and K-12 education markets. There's a reason it's so popular and why LibreOffice and GSuite have emulated the bulk of it's feature set.
- whateveruser 8y ago
  It doesn't matter how much value Word delivers when Libreoffice Writer delivers more, for less (zero) cost. For most people, Writer is enough, and so they won't buy Word. Its just free market and competition working the way it should.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Ah the lack of experience with Word features...
    - checkyoursudo 8y ago
      The last MS Office I paid for was 2007. The last time I used Word 2007 was 2010 or 2011 maybe. I am 100% lacking in any experience in Word features, at least since then, and I hardly remember anything from Word 2007. As a lawyer, I deal with other people's Word products all day every day. What Word features am I missing out on? I am genuinely curious and not trying to be snarky in any way.
      - type0 8y ago
        > What Word features am I missing out on? All those pesky macros that would allow your computer to be infected
        pjmlp 8y ago
        You mean like those curl url | sh advices?
        checkyoursudo 8y ago
        You can choose to install malware on any system you control, or be tricked into doing so.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Since around 2007 that those pesky macros only run if the user takes the same effort as typing curl | sh.
21 8y ago
A study on Linux users found that they wouldn't pay for Photoshop or other Adobe products either, expecting them to be free. Which is why Adobe never bothered.
- whateveruser 8y ago
  A cursory google search couldn't find what you mention. Can you cite the source please? I know another example that goes in opposite direction, of Humble Bundles, where Linux had consistently higher average payment than Windows, but that may have changed in recent years.
  - 21 8y ago
    It was a long time ago. But some searching today, official response from Adobe (2010): > Again, we've done the research. The profits aren't there -- very few Linux users are willing to pay for commercial software. And the cost of entry is still high because of the fragmented Linux landscape. The Linux world has to change before commercial software will have reason to invest in Linux ports. And we haven't seen much real change in the Linux market in several years. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/487814 https://forums.adobe.com/thread/487814 > At the height of the Dot-Com era, dozens of startups tried selling proprietary applications for Linux -- and not one survived more than a couple of years. Even Adobe, after releasing a popular beta of FrameMaker, withdrew it from circulation after a poll suggested that users were unwilling to pay for applications. http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/Why-proprietary-software-isn-t-ported-to-Linux http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruc...
    - techntoke 8y ago
      Guys.. just trust us. We're Adobe, and the good guys. Remember how awesome Flash was?!? /s
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

> If only Linux users would pay for desktop software I'm happy to pay for lots of things. But I'm not interested in paying for crappy software. I wouldn't, for instance, pay for Microsoft Word.

hfdgiutdryg 8y ago

Microsoft Word is a more complex piece of software that delivers more value to more businesses and individuals than (virtually?) anything that anyone on this site has ever made. It amazes me how little people value other people's work on this site.

smolder 8y ago
You are right, Word is impressive in the same way a big factory that assembles complicated products is impressive. It's an impressive amount of work, it's complex, and it gets a lot done. But looking in the factory, you can see some things it does in house that are better left to other facilities, some machinery that is overcomplicated or inefficient, it pollutes more than it needs to, etc. But we need to hit those production targets. Changing things up would be expensive, so on we go... providing value to those who depend on it.
_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
Microsoft Word (and word processors more generally) are horrible environments for creating any sort of content in. They're great for bureaucrats who like to "do lots of work" without producing anything of use. I cringe every time I have to deal with a Word file.
- hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
  It sounds like you aren't very good at using Word. Imagine if someone said "I cringe every time I have to deal with a command line."
  - _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
    I used Word for a long time, and learned "advanced features". It just sucks compared to real content production software like LaTeX.
  - ummonk 8y ago
    Well, a classic command line is a very poor interface to the computer. It's only good because every other interface is so bloated and indirect.
    - hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
      A well-executed command line is a precise and efficient way to get work done. It is invaluable, and its value is unrelated to problems present in other interfaces.
  - techntoke 8y ago
    I can use Word, but I prefer to use markup formats or LibreOffice. Why wouldn't I want a piece of bloat that doesn't even work on my OS natively?
  - rrix2 8y ago
    > Imagine if someone said "I cringe every time I have to deal with a command line." People do say this though. People have personal preferences for the software they have to use all day, and most of the time people don't agree on what that software is. And most of those decisions are driven by the type of work people do. I don't expect a lawyer or a business analyst to use command line interfaces, and I don't think they expect software engineers to code in Word...
    - hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
      People do say this though And the other people, who were discussing the command line, ignore them. The point is that you can't really criticize something when your criticism seems to boil down to "I don't understand this". And who said anything about writing code in Word? What are you on about?!
- com2kid 8y ago
  I customized Word with a bunch of Macros, wrote a 300 page educational book in it. I had no issues and was quite productive. I may have been more irritated if I had needed to do a bunch of complicated layout work. For the last year Word has actually supported LaTeX for math equations, see https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/murrays/2017/07/30/latex-math-in-office/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/murrays/2017/07/30/latex-ma... But aside from that, Word is great for short and medium length documents, especially ones that need group editing. Put a Word file up on Sharepoint, and now there is user friendly change tracking and commenting. I've written multiple technical specs in Word, it serves as a great way to collaborate, so long as everyone has bought into the ecosystem.
  - type0 8y ago
    > so long as everyone has bought into the ecosystem. Well that's the problem isn't it, every potential collaborator who can't or won't buy it will be shunned.
    - com2kid 8y ago
      If you are at a company that uses Sharepoint, everyone already has bought in. The same argument can be made for any piece of software. People have to buy in, even free software requires taking time to learning it vs whatever existing workflow is in use (if any).
- tomc1985 8y ago
  I disagree... for the purpose of editing documents from a nontechnical mindset, Word is fine.
  - seabrookmx 8y ago
    Main point being nontechnical mindset. OP points out LaTeX, but for non-technical and non-academic people, this is a non-starter. Word has an extremely low barrier to entry so it makes tons of sense for the general public and K-12 education markets. There's a reason it's so popular and why LibreOffice and GSuite have emulated the bulk of it's feature set.
whateveruser 8y ago
It doesn't matter how much value Word delivers when Libreoffice Writer delivers more, for less (zero) cost. For most people, Writer is enough, and so they won't buy Word. Its just free market and competition working the way it should.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Ah the lack of experience with Word features...
  - checkyoursudo 8y ago
    The last MS Office I paid for was 2007. The last time I used Word 2007 was 2010 or 2011 maybe. I am 100% lacking in any experience in Word features, at least since then, and I hardly remember anything from Word 2007. As a lawyer, I deal with other people's Word products all day every day. What Word features am I missing out on? I am genuinely curious and not trying to be snarky in any way.
    - type0 8y ago
      > What Word features am I missing out on? All those pesky macros that would allow your computer to be infected
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        You mean like those curl url | sh advices?
        checkyoursudo 8y ago
        You can choose to install malware on any system you control, or be tricked into doing so.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Since around 2007 that those pesky macros only run if the user takes the same effort as typing curl | sh.

21 8y ago

A study on Linux users found that they wouldn't pay for Photoshop or other Adobe products either, expecting them to be free. Which is why Adobe never bothered.

whateveruser 8y ago
A cursory google search couldn't find what you mention. Can you cite the source please? I know another example that goes in opposite direction, of Humble Bundles, where Linux had consistently higher average payment than Windows, but that may have changed in recent years.
- 21 8y ago
  It was a long time ago. But some searching today, official response from Adobe (2010): > Again, we've done the research. The profits aren't there -- very few Linux users are willing to pay for commercial software. And the cost of entry is still high because of the fragmented Linux landscape. The Linux world has to change before commercial software will have reason to invest in Linux ports. And we haven't seen much real change in the Linux market in several years. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/487814 https://forums.adobe.com/thread/487814 > At the height of the Dot-Com era, dozens of startups tried selling proprietary applications for Linux -- and not one survived more than a couple of years. Even Adobe, after releasing a popular beta of FrameMaker, withdrew it from circulation after a poll suggested that users were unwilling to pay for applications. http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-Blog/Why-proprietary-software-isn-t-ported-to-Linux http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruc...
  - techntoke 8y ago
    Guys.. just trust us. We're Adobe, and the good guys. Remember how awesome Flash was?!? /s
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]