4 ms·

"I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM)

by roel_v 16y ago

"I suspect that Linux users, as a community, are closer to the software-development community, so when good software is made (without a bunch of insulting DRM) at a reasonable price, they're more than happy to pay for it." Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux (yes I know about Oracle...), and the spectacular failure of anyone trying to make any (who here remembers Corel's ill-faited WordPerfect for Linux attempt, or Loki games?) are devastating proof that the exact opposite is true. (I guess one could argue that 2$ is the 'reasonable price' for any and all software, but that's just closing one's eyes to the economic realities of the software industry). I mean let's not beat around the bush: Linux users don't pay for software in any sizable amount. Plunking down a few bucks for some games once every decade doesn't count. I like Linux as much as the next guy and I've used it since 1998, but the extremists (at the FSF and elsewhere) that have managed to somehow convince a large enough portion of Linux users that paying for software is somehow a moral issue (I mean, seriously?) have killed 90% of the market in that area. Yes I know that a few companies left and right make a few cents on 'support' and other such frolicking in the margin, but Red Hat is the only one who has managed to make any serious money from Linux itself (as opposed to some others who have found a sound and cheap platform on it to build their product offerings on, those seem to do OK with it)..

bryanlarsen 16y ago
I see it as more like: Linux users will not pay for something when they're forced to pay for something, but when they don't have to pay for something, they're more likely to pay for it than other groups are. (Most still won't if they don't have to, but some will, in a much higher percentage than users from more mainstream OS's). I think they're also much more likely to do without than to pirate. Of course, it's easy for people to rationalize piracy in their head -- it has DRM, it's too expensive, the company is evil, et cetera. But I think Linux users are much more likely than other operating system users to do without rather than pirate. OTOH, OSX users are probably more likely to pay for things than do without. I don't think the Android/iOS ecosystems have shaken out enough to make broad generalizations yet. Myself, I'm definitely a "Linux" style user. I've purchased a few Android apps, but all of them have very usable free editions. Typically, all the paid version does is remove the advertising. Removing advertising is not worth $5 to me, but I sometimes buy the premium version anyways.
- roel_v 16y ago
  The cynic in me would say that Linux pirate less because there's nothing to pirate >:) but I do agree with your overall assessment.
_delirium 16y ago
Some may be unwillingness to pay, but when it comes to user experience, proprietary apps (paid or not) have never fit in that well either. Long before "app stores" became common on other platforms, users of at least Debian-based distributions (and a few others) have been grabbing most of their software from an appstore-like interface from their distro: you click on the app in synaptic and it installs, configures, and someone is responsible for ensuring it plays nice with the rest of the system. Similar story for, say, FreeBSD ports. If you want software not in the repository, it is usually a much worse user experience. You get some static binary with a .sh install script, which wants to install in /opt/ or something, doesn't add itself to the distro's menu system, doesn't integrate with the settings manager, your default browser, etc., and generally is a pain in the ass. Even true for no-money proprietary apps, e.g. getting icc on my system was a lot more annoying than getting gcc or llvm on it, at least last time I tried.
- roel_v 16y ago
  True, it's a major pain to distribute software in object code form on Linux. The many package systems, moving target libraries, C++'s lack of a standardized ABI; they all make it hard. Originally my previous post had a long-winded ramble on the many evenings I wasted downloading the 25 or whatever many it were parts of WordPerfect, assembling them to the right places, fixing issues with libraries, ... It was most certainly not end-user ready, but the user base at that time was composed of people who could theoretically have managed the technical parts, but just weren't willing to pay (that includes myself). But since you bring up Debian, they were the first with a fully functional and well-working package system that automatically downloaded packages etc., it worked (still does, probably) great. But the Debian community was ('is', maybe, I don't know the current state of affairs) so infused with the Free mantra that any for-pay software to be distributed through them would be politically unthinkable. Yes there are practical issues with distributing binaries that you can't recompile yourself and yes I know about non-free, but there is downright hostility to encouraging, fostering or even enabling a for-pay Linux software ecosystem in the Debian world (elsewhere too, it's just an example). I subscribed to some Debian mailing lists for a while 7 or 8 years ago, and on the non-technical lists most of the traffic seemed to be about if this or that package was Free enough to be worthy of inclusion in Debian! I mean it's OK, they all have the right to do what they want, who am I to tell people what not to. And one person isn't the next one and when there are 10 nerds in a room there are 11 opinions on anything, I know; my point is, let's stop claiming that Linux users would pay if only there was no DRM, or ease of use, or better quality, etc. etc.; let's just all face the facts and say that the culture is generally hostile to the idea of paying for software, that binary-only software is a second rate citizen, looked down upon to the point of contempt, and that no software company has enough cloud to change this. All of the above is OK, if that's what people (other people) in large enough amounts want. Those who don't will go elsewhere, it's a (mostly) free world. But let's also be honest about the fundamentals. I've deluded myself for 10 years with the Free Software mantra and used the same tired arguments - we're being held down by The Man, next year will be the Year of Linux on the Desktop, there's real money to be made in support and training and customization, etc.; the reality is simply the opposite. (I guess that's why I'm railing so hard on this now, just like ex-smokers are the most obnoxious anti-smoking "activists" - I guess it's the self-loathing after a major disillusion of realizing you've been wrong on something you had strong beliefs about for a sizable amount of time :) )
rwl 16y ago
> Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux... Linux (I'm thinking of just the kernel itself here, but it's true of the whole GNU platform as well) has plenty of "commercial" software running on it. That is, it has plenty of software that people were paid to write, because it is supporting the business functions of many organizations. If "commercial" software is software that is purchased -- software that people are paid to write -- then GNU and Linux have no lack of commercial software. They do have a dearth of software that is paid for by one particular business model: restricting copying in order to charge a fee. You are right that the FSF and many others consider this particular business model to be unethical. But don't confuse that particular business model with the practice of paying for software, which the FSF has no problem with and actually encourages. [1] [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- roel_v 16y ago
  Please don't insult my and other reader's intelligence by playing definition games. There is no way an even only semi-informed reader could misunderstand that by 'commercial software', I and others replying to me meant 'software written by companies or individuals with the purpose to sell this software to others, under the conditions that these others cannot distribute or modify the software, and whose source of income rely on this non-redistribution so that they can charge others too; in this way spreading the cost of development over all users rather than making the first users of a specific feature pay the full amount for it". In all common usage, "paid software" is "software that the user paid for in order to get the right to use it", and not "someone was paid to write it". Firefox is not "paid software" or "commercial software" because some dude at Mozilla.org got paid for writing parts of it. I'm not "confusing" anything here, I'm perfectly aware of software business models, how they relate to open source, the FSF's stance on them, etc. If I had to qualify all words I use each and every time, rather than assume that readers can make a reasonable contextual interpretation of words, a 2-paragraph post would have to start with 10 paragraphs of definitions, assumptions, assumed pre-conditions etc. Your post is a schoolbook example of the hard core FSF disciple's propaganda strategy: focusing on semantic minutiae, making things that are 100% clear in any reasonable reader's mind opaque and ambiguous, using emotionally-laden words like 'open', 'free', 'restricting' so as to associate Free software with the words with generally positive connotations and those with negative with other software, to get gullible people to subscribe to their idiosyncratic world view. I'm not even sure why I got suckered into replying at all, I guess I'm just gullible too, maybe just in another way.

by roel_v 16y ago

bryanlarsen 16y ago

I see it as more like: Linux users will not pay for something when they're forced to pay for something, but when they don't have to pay for something, they're more likely to pay for it than other groups are. (Most still won't if they don't have to, but some will, in a much higher percentage than users from more mainstream OS's). I think they're also much more likely to do without than to pirate. Of course, it's easy for people to rationalize piracy in their head -- it has DRM, it's too expensive, the company is evil, et cetera. But I think Linux users are much more likely than other operating system users to do without rather than pirate. OTOH, OSX users are probably more likely to pay for things than do without. I don't think the Android/iOS ecosystems have shaken out enough to make broad generalizations yet. Myself, I'm definitely a "Linux" style user. I've purchased a few Android apps, but all of them have very usable free editions. Typically, all the paid version does is remove the advertising. Removing advertising is not worth $5 to me, but I sometimes buy the premium version anyways.

roel_v 16y ago
The cynic in me would say that Linux pirate less because there's nothing to pirate >:) but I do agree with your overall assessment.

_delirium 16y ago

Some may be unwillingness to pay, but when it comes to user experience, proprietary apps (paid or not) have never fit in that well either. Long before "app stores" became common on other platforms, users of at least Debian-based distributions (and a few others) have been grabbing most of their software from an appstore-like interface from their distro: you click on the app in synaptic and it installs, configures, and someone is responsible for ensuring it plays nice with the rest of the system. Similar story for, say, FreeBSD ports. If you want software not in the repository, it is usually a much worse user experience. You get some static binary with a .sh install script, which wants to install in /opt/ or something, doesn't add itself to the distro's menu system, doesn't integrate with the settings manager, your default browser, etc., and generally is a pain in the ass. Even true for no-money proprietary apps, e.g. getting icc on my system was a lot more annoying than getting gcc or llvm on it, at least last time I tried.

roel_v 16y ago
True, it's a major pain to distribute software in object code form on Linux. The many package systems, moving target libraries, C++'s lack of a standardized ABI; they all make it hard. Originally my previous post had a long-winded ramble on the many evenings I wasted downloading the 25 or whatever many it were parts of WordPerfect, assembling them to the right places, fixing issues with libraries, ... It was most certainly not end-user ready, but the user base at that time was composed of people who could theoretically have managed the technical parts, but just weren't willing to pay (that includes myself). But since you bring up Debian, they were the first with a fully functional and well-working package system that automatically downloaded packages etc., it worked (still does, probably) great. But the Debian community was ('is', maybe, I don't know the current state of affairs) so infused with the Free mantra that any for-pay software to be distributed through them would be politically unthinkable. Yes there are practical issues with distributing binaries that you can't recompile yourself and yes I know about non-free, but there is downright hostility to encouraging, fostering or even enabling a for-pay Linux software ecosystem in the Debian world (elsewhere too, it's just an example). I subscribed to some Debian mailing lists for a while 7 or 8 years ago, and on the non-technical lists most of the traffic seemed to be about if this or that package was Free enough to be worthy of inclusion in Debian! I mean it's OK, they all have the right to do what they want, who am I to tell people what not to. And one person isn't the next one and when there are 10 nerds in a room there are 11 opinions on anything, I know; my point is, let's stop claiming that Linux users would pay if only there was no DRM, or ease of use, or better quality, etc. etc.; let's just all face the facts and say that the culture is generally hostile to the idea of paying for software, that binary-only software is a second rate citizen, looked down upon to the point of contempt, and that no software company has enough cloud to change this. All of the above is OK, if that's what people (other people) in large enough amounts want. Those who don't will go elsewhere, it's a (mostly) free world. But let's also be honest about the fundamentals. I've deluded myself for 10 years with the Free Software mantra and used the same tired arguments - we're being held down by The Man, next year will be the Year of Linux on the Desktop, there's real money to be made in support and training and customization, etc.; the reality is simply the opposite. (I guess that's why I'm railing so hard on this now, just like ex-smokers are the most obnoxious anti-smoking "activists" - I guess it's the self-loathing after a major disillusion of realizing you've been wrong on something you had strong beliefs about for a sizable amount of time :) )

rwl 16y ago

> Well the utter and complete non-existence of any commercial software on Linux... Linux (I'm thinking of just the kernel itself here, but it's true of the whole GNU platform as well) has plenty of "commercial" software running on it. That is, it has plenty of software that people were paid to write, because it is supporting the business functions of many organizations. If "commercial" software is software that is purchased -- software that people are paid to write -- then GNU and Linux have no lack of commercial software. They do have a dearth of software that is paid for by one particular business model: restricting copying in order to charge a fee. You are right that the FSF and many others consider this particular business model to be unethical. But don't confuse that particular business model with the practice of paying for software, which the FSF has no problem with and actually encourages. [1] [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

roel_v 16y ago
Please don't insult my and other reader's intelligence by playing definition games. There is no way an even only semi-informed reader could misunderstand that by 'commercial software', I and others replying to me meant 'software written by companies or individuals with the purpose to sell this software to others, under the conditions that these others cannot distribute or modify the software, and whose source of income rely on this non-redistribution so that they can charge others too; in this way spreading the cost of development over all users rather than making the first users of a specific feature pay the full amount for it". In all common usage, "paid software" is "software that the user paid for in order to get the right to use it", and not "someone was paid to write it". Firefox is not "paid software" or "commercial software" because some dude at Mozilla.org got paid for writing parts of it. I'm not "confusing" anything here, I'm perfectly aware of software business models, how they relate to open source, the FSF's stance on them, etc. If I had to qualify all words I use each and every time, rather than assume that readers can make a reasonable contextual interpretation of words, a 2-paragraph post would have to start with 10 paragraphs of definitions, assumptions, assumed pre-conditions etc. Your post is a schoolbook example of the hard core FSF disciple's propaganda strategy: focusing on semantic minutiae, making things that are 100% clear in any reasonable reader's mind opaque and ambiguous, using emotionally-laden words like 'open', 'free', 'restricting' so as to associate Free software with the words with generally positive connotations and those with negative with other software, to get gullible people to subscribe to their idiosyncratic world view. I'm not even sure why I got suckered into replying at all, I guess I'm just gullible too, maybe just in another way.