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

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 :) )