3 ms·

That I think is almost entirely false. People don't use Linux because it is free (as in beer). People for whom cost is the primary concern can pirate Windows, b

That I think is almost entirely false. People don't use Linux because it is free (as in beer). People for whom cost is the primary concern can pirate Windows, buy cheap versions from online stores or install a legitimate version of Windows and never activate it(Microsoft makes it really easy these days). Heck already probably millions of people are using one of these options rather than installing Linux. I have been using Linux for 10 years or so and a lot of my friends/colleagues use Linux and we use Linux because software for which we are paid to work - works best on Linux. I don't think beyond college students, professional programmers using Linux mind paying for software (I pay for several!). Most of us know - there are warts and all but I have also used Mac for 5 years and my wife uses Mac for her work and it does not look like fun wresting with brew everyday. The problem isn't that people aren't willing to pay for software - IMO the problem is, Linux is really difficult to support, because of Linux Desktop being a continuous moving target. So, application development for Linux is hard because the base is continuously changing but no company has managed to invest enough money/resources to make the base stable. And given small Linux marketshare, resources required to make a stable base is astronomical (Like google did with Android). So, It is a chicken and egg problem. Linux can't attract large install base without a wide variety of application software, but companies who have tried supporting Linux application development have burnt themselves in past (and why bother given small Linux install base) and hence nobody has incentive to make that solid base.

pabs3 6y ago
I came for the gratis software, stayed for the libre software.
jolux 6y ago
>People don't use Linux because it is free (as in beer). Plenty of Linux users I know do. >People for whom cost is the primary concern can pirate Windows, buy cheap versions from online stores or install a legitimate version of Windows and never activate it(Microsoft makes it really easy these days). Heck already probably millions of people are using one of these options rather than installing Linux. Not if they're programmers and prefer Unix. My experience with Linux users is different than yours. Yes, many of them end up caring about free software. Quite a few also have the "why pay for anything" attitude and pirate all their media, even when they could afford it. Sometimes these groups overlap. I don't think there's one single reason people come to Linux. If people are willing to pay money for Linux, how come companies trying to support it haven't been successful? Would you pay $150 for a copy of a Linux distro? $200? How many of your Linux-using friends would? Would you be willing to do that every three years, like Windows? The attitude I encounter frequently among Linux users is not just that they wouldn't pay but that they don't think money is a solution to the problems Linux has. So far, the most critical Linux development has been subsidized by proprietary software companies who use it for their infrastructure. Nobody's interested in supporting it for money because nobody wants to pay for it. The whole reason it's popular is because you don't have to. Linux would be nothing today if Linus had charged for it. There's no chicken and egg problem here. The egg is a community which doesn't value software in material terms.
- gnufied 6y ago
  > Not if they're programmers and prefer Unix. My experience with Linux users is different than yours. Yes, many of them end up caring about free software. Quite a few also have the "why pay for anything" attitude and pirate all their media, even when they could afford it. Sometimes these groups overlap. I don't think there's one single reason people come to Linux. If every one of those programmers paid $150 for their copy of Linux Desktop - do you think it would enough to fund a Company that could build/maintain a rock-solid-stable-base Linux Desktop? The problem is that developing/supporting an OS requires enormous engineering resources and you magically don't require less resources just because your install base is small. Currently libinput is maintained by one man mostly and I have a suspicion that Mirosoft has a small team for input devices. Take X11 vs Wayland for example. What would this new distro target? If it targets wayland - users will complain about nvidia GPU support, if it targets X11 - users will complain about fractional scaling/tearing. These are hard engineering problems which require working with partner drivers and long term commitment. I personally think that - many companies have realized there is no money to be made in supporting desktop Linux(i.e desktop itself, not a cross-platform application running on top of it), even if every one of those users paid the one time fee.
  - jolux 6y ago
    >If every one of those programmers paid $150 for their copy of Linux Desktop - do you think it would enough to fund a Company that could build/maintain a rock-solid-stable-base Linux Desktop? It wouldn't be a bad place to start. >The problem is that developing/supporting an OS requires enormous engineering resources and you magically don't require less resources just because your install base is small. Well, you have to narrow the hardware you support. That's the main thing that makes Linux on the desktop suck. Only Microsoft has succeeded in writing a highly compatible operating system, as you mention with a lot of resources. But there isn't the will for this, because people want Linux to run on everything. In this area, System76 are probably doing the best. But their hardware is not very good. >I personally think that - many companies have realized there is no money to be made in supporting desktop Linux(i.e desktop itself, not a cross-platform application running on top of it), even if every one of those users paid the one time fee. The point is that the fee is off the table because nobody would pay it. That's all I'm saying. Your argument is a non-sequitur. You say these engineering problems require hard work, and that there's not enough money in it even if everyone paid the fee. In that case, one would need to raise the fee until it can pay for the development that needs to be done. But the market would not bear it. It already will not bear a standard operating system price.

pabs3 6y ago

I came for the gratis software, stayed for the libre software.

jolux 6y ago

>People don't use Linux because it is free (as in beer). Plenty of Linux users I know do. >People for whom cost is the primary concern can pirate Windows, buy cheap versions from online stores or install a legitimate version of Windows and never activate it(Microsoft makes it really easy these days). Heck already probably millions of people are using one of these options rather than installing Linux. Not if they're programmers and prefer Unix. My experience with Linux users is different than yours. Yes, many of them end up caring about free software. Quite a few also have the "why pay for anything" attitude and pirate all their media, even when they could afford it. Sometimes these groups overlap. I don't think there's one single reason people come to Linux. If people are willing to pay money for Linux, how come companies trying to support it haven't been successful? Would you pay $150 for a copy of a Linux distro? $200? How many of your Linux-using friends would? Would you be willing to do that every three years, like Windows? The attitude I encounter frequently among Linux users is not just that they wouldn't pay but that they don't think money is a solution to the problems Linux has. So far, the most critical Linux development has been subsidized by proprietary software companies who use it for their infrastructure. Nobody's interested in supporting it for money because nobody wants to pay for it. The whole reason it's popular is because you don't have to. Linux would be nothing today if Linus had charged for it. There's no chicken and egg problem here. The egg is a community which doesn't value software in material terms.

gnufied 6y ago
> Not if they're programmers and prefer Unix. My experience with Linux users is different than yours. Yes, many of them end up caring about free software. Quite a few also have the "why pay for anything" attitude and pirate all their media, even when they could afford it. Sometimes these groups overlap. I don't think there's one single reason people come to Linux. If every one of those programmers paid $150 for their copy of Linux Desktop - do you think it would enough to fund a Company that could build/maintain a rock-solid-stable-base Linux Desktop? The problem is that developing/supporting an OS requires enormous engineering resources and you magically don't require less resources just because your install base is small. Currently libinput is maintained by one man mostly and I have a suspicion that Mirosoft has a small team for input devices. Take X11 vs Wayland for example. What would this new distro target? If it targets wayland - users will complain about nvidia GPU support, if it targets X11 - users will complain about fractional scaling/tearing. These are hard engineering problems which require working with partner drivers and long term commitment. I personally think that - many companies have realized there is no money to be made in supporting desktop Linux(i.e desktop itself, not a cross-platform application running on top of it), even if every one of those users paid the one time fee.
- jolux 6y ago
  >If every one of those programmers paid $150 for their copy of Linux Desktop - do you think it would enough to fund a Company that could build/maintain a rock-solid-stable-base Linux Desktop? It wouldn't be a bad place to start. >The problem is that developing/supporting an OS requires enormous engineering resources and you magically don't require less resources just because your install base is small. Well, you have to narrow the hardware you support. That's the main thing that makes Linux on the desktop suck. Only Microsoft has succeeded in writing a highly compatible operating system, as you mention with a lot of resources. But there isn't the will for this, because people want Linux to run on everything. In this area, System76 are probably doing the best. But their hardware is not very good. >I personally think that - many companies have realized there is no money to be made in supporting desktop Linux(i.e desktop itself, not a cross-platform application running on top of it), even if every one of those users paid the one time fee. The point is that the fee is off the table because nobody would pay it. That's all I'm saying. Your argument is a non-sequitur. You say these engineering problems require hard work, and that there's not enough money in it even if everyone paid the fee. In that case, one would need to raise the fee until it can pay for the development that needs to be done. But the market would not bear it. It already will not bear a standard operating system price.