5 ms·

I also feel like this is an insane opportunity for companies who previously did not offer Linux native clients to start doing so and see some of a hike in sales

I also feel like this is an insane opportunity for companies who previously did not offer Linux native clients to start doing so and see some of a hike in sales specifically coming from the Linux crowd. I would absolutely pay good money for high quality Linux compatible software, after all, its not free as in free beer. I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly, fully opt-in by default of course. I think maybe Ubuntu did? I don't know that Arch ever has. I think its a wasted opportunity to fund Linux distros by taking a small cut (probably not 30%) from commercial products directly on those app repositories.

pxc 9mo ago
> I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly, fully opt-in by default of course. That's essentially being done with Flatpak. Linux is largely still built on the old (and indeed, outdated) Unix trust model. The system itself is assumed to be trusted, and the primary security boundaries on the system are drawn between users. Since Linux package managers actually install and manage the base system as well as end-user software, anything the package manager installs is treated as part of "the distribution", and thus trusted. It's not a good idea to use such a thing to install proprietary, third-party software. The curation and vetting of the distro maintainers is actually vital here, and when you add a third party repo, you're giving it a lot of trust. At the same time, why would distro maintainers give free labor to integrate proprietary software? Most are not super interested in that, and even if they are, they don't generally have the rights necessary to redistribute, let alone modify, proprietary software. On the other hand, those third-party developers and publishers don't want to master and manage a half-dozen different packaging formats, and various other packaging ecosystem differences that vary across distros. Flatpak is positioned to solve all of these problems, and it's no secret that enabling (relatively) responsible use of proprietary software is one of the goals. It enabled distributing a small number of large, common runtimes of which different versions can safely coexist on the same system, addressing fragmentation. To reduce the amount of trust given to installed apps, it separates what it installs from the base system, and offers sandboxing to help limit the permissions granted to an app that still runs under the OS user of the person using it. And it supports third-party repos that publishers can run themselves. I'm not currently a daily Flatpak user, so idk how much the current reality lines up with that goal, but that's where the movement towards this is on the Linux desktop today.
bsimpson 9mo ago
Elementary has paid software.
TingPing 9mo ago
It makes zero sense for traditional distros to have payments. They exclusively repackage software. You want direct to customer platforms (Snap, Flathub, etc).
- cestith 9mo ago
  The dnf, deb, or pacman tools could point to a repo where the packages have paid activation.
  - akdev1l 9mo ago
    Companies can already do that. This is how redhat works in its entirety. This has nothing to do with the base distribution
    - cestith 9mo ago
      I don’t remember ever having to activate a piece of RedHat code after downloading it. I do remember paying a subscription to have authentication to particular repos. It’s been a while, though.
1718627440 9mo ago
proprietary != commercial You can have free commercial software, and proprietary shareware, the opposites are oxymorons.
- 1718627440 9mo ago
  Thanks, for downvoting pointing to definitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://mako.cc/talks/20031106-nten/foil06.html https://mako.cc/talks/20031106-nten/foil06.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html
  - 1718627440 9mo ago
    Oh common guys, can you at least start a discussion, why you think proprietary and commercial software should be regarded as the same, or something?
    - subscribed 9mo ago
      Discussion against the prevalent groupthink sentiment are considered haram and shunned on HN. I know it's unfair but it is what it is. I wish there was some independent vote quality assessment process (a bot working on the HN backend) gently adjusting account standing factor based on their votes on the obviously true/false comments. After a while troll would simply see zero impact of their votes and comments assigned 0 karma at the outset. For not bringing the positive impact to the community.
    - notpushkin 9mo ago
      I agree with your point on the difference between proprietary v. commercial, but it’s a bit hard to parse your example. “Free” is kind of an unfortunate word choice, as it obscures the gratis v. libre distinction you’re trying to point out. Free/libre commercial software is indeed possible, and I’d love to see more products utilizing this model. We do need to keep in mind that “cracking” such software becomes legal (which is probably not a big deal because people would do that anyway).
Levitating 9mo ago
> I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly I think you're alone in this.
akdev1l 9mo ago
> I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly, fully opt-in by default of course. Why would a bunch of volunteers put a ton of effort to create infrastructure so people (corporations, really) can make money? Flathub is making inroads into having paid apps but they’re explicitly not a distribution really
- giancarlostoro 9mo ago
  It would fund their projects. Imagine if more Linux distros has enough funding to fully hire part-time volunteers full time? Those companies will sell them without those stores. This at least gives them a piece of the pie.
  - jchw 9mo ago
    The entire point of the free software movement is to promote free software principles and software rights. What I think many Linux distributions would prefer is a model where companies who do benefit from selling software and hardware are funding them indirectly, so they can focus on continuing to promote free software in a more neutral way, without the pressures and potentially misaligned incentives that come from running a store front can bring. There are distributions like elementary OS which are happy to sell you things with this model, though, but I just don't think it's surprising many distributions would actively prefer to not be in this position even if it leaves money on the table. This sort of principled approach is exactly why a lot of us really like Linux.
    - reissbaker 9mo ago
      It's really unfortunate the term "free software" took off rather than e.g. "libre software", since it muddies discussions like this. The point of "free software" is not "you don't have to pay," it's that you have freedom in terms of what you do with the code running on your own machine. Selling free software is not incompatible with free software: it's free as in freedom, not as in free beer.
GoblinSlayer 9mo ago
The package manager can't help with subscription schemes based on short lived licenses.
II2II 9mo ago
> I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly, fully opt-in by default of course. One of the advantages of open source software is the ability to distribute said software with relatively few restrictions. It simplifies life for the maintainers of Linux distributions, those who manage Linux systems, the end user, and software developers. Making a package manager a retail product store would complicate things for everyone. That said, the only thing preventing the distribution of proprietary software by most Linux distributions is policy. If a distribution wanted to do so, and the vendor's license allowed for permissive software distribution, they could do so. The vendor could implement their own mechanism for selling and distributing license keys. The advantage to them would be using a common software distribution method without having a middleman taking a cut. (Think shareware, or even physical software that included a license key.)
rtpg 9mo ago
> I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly, fully opt-in by default of course. It's not "zero cost" but plenty of proprietary software with native linux clients will do things like set up Ubuntu package repos. You're pasting a handful of lines in the command line (or for the fancier stuff downloading the isntaller that does that for you) and you're off to the races There might be a boutique business that could help with installer/package repo mgmt for people wanting to ship linux clients and take advantage of the auto-updaters and the like. Maybe.
ErroneousBosh 9mo ago
> I would absolutely pay good money for high quality Linux compatible software, after all, its not free as in free beer. What software are you looking for? About the only thing seriously lacking is a proper competitor for Photoshop and Illustrator, really.
DerArzt 9mo ago
Is there a need for selling of solutions via the package manager? Most of the software that I install that's paid asks for a license key or asks you to sign into your already paid for account.

pxc 9mo ago

> I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly, fully opt-in by default of course. That's essentially being done with Flatpak. Linux is largely still built on the old (and indeed, outdated) Unix trust model. The system itself is assumed to be trusted, and the primary security boundaries on the system are drawn between users. Since Linux package managers actually install and manage the base system as well as end-user software, anything the package manager installs is treated as part of "the distribution", and thus trusted. It's not a good idea to use such a thing to install proprietary, third-party software. The curation and vetting of the distro maintainers is actually vital here, and when you add a third party repo, you're giving it a lot of trust. At the same time, why would distro maintainers give free labor to integrate proprietary software? Most are not super interested in that, and even if they are, they don't generally have the rights necessary to redistribute, let alone modify, proprietary software. On the other hand, those third-party developers and publishers don't want to master and manage a half-dozen different packaging formats, and various other packaging ecosystem differences that vary across distros. Flatpak is positioned to solve all of these problems, and it's no secret that enabling (relatively) responsible use of proprietary software is one of the goals. It enabled distributing a small number of large, common runtimes of which different versions can safely coexist on the same system, addressing fragmentation. To reduce the amount of trust given to installed apps, it separates what it installs from the base system, and offers sandboxing to help limit the permissions granted to an app that still runs under the OS user of the person using it. And it supports third-party repos that publishers can run themselves. I'm not currently a daily Flatpak user, so idk how much the current reality lines up with that goal, but that's where the movement towards this is on the Linux desktop today.

bsimpson 9mo ago

Elementary has paid software.

TingPing 9mo ago

It makes zero sense for traditional distros to have payments. They exclusively repackage software. You want direct to customer platforms (Snap, Flathub, etc).

cestith 9mo ago
The dnf, deb, or pacman tools could point to a repo where the packages have paid activation.
- akdev1l 9mo ago
  Companies can already do that. This is how redhat works in its entirety. This has nothing to do with the base distribution
  - cestith 9mo ago
    I don’t remember ever having to activate a piece of RedHat code after downloading it. I do remember paying a subscription to have authentication to particular repos. It’s been a while, though.

1718627440 9mo ago

proprietary != commercial You can have free commercial software, and proprietary shareware, the opposites are oxymorons.

1718627440 9mo ago
Thanks, for downvoting pointing to definitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software https://mako.cc/talks/20031106-nten/foil06.html https://mako.cc/talks/20031106-nten/foil06.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html
- 1718627440 9mo ago
  Oh common guys, can you at least start a discussion, why you think proprietary and commercial software should be regarded as the same, or something?
  - subscribed 9mo ago
    Discussion against the prevalent groupthink sentiment are considered haram and shunned on HN. I know it's unfair but it is what it is. I wish there was some independent vote quality assessment process (a bot working on the HN backend) gently adjusting account standing factor based on their votes on the obviously true/false comments. After a while troll would simply see zero impact of their votes and comments assigned 0 karma at the outset. For not bringing the positive impact to the community.
  - notpushkin 9mo ago
    I agree with your point on the difference between proprietary v. commercial, but it’s a bit hard to parse your example. “Free” is kind of an unfortunate word choice, as it obscures the gratis v. libre distinction you’re trying to point out. Free/libre commercial software is indeed possible, and I’d love to see more products utilizing this model. We do need to keep in mind that “cracking” such software becomes legal (which is probably not a big deal because people would do that anyway).

Levitating 9mo ago

> I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly I think you're alone in this.

akdev1l 9mo ago

> I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly, fully opt-in by default of course. Why would a bunch of volunteers put a ton of effort to create infrastructure so people (corporations, really) can make money? Flathub is making inroads into having paid apps but they’re explicitly not a distribution really

giancarlostoro 9mo ago
It would fund their projects. Imagine if more Linux distros has enough funding to fully hire part-time volunteers full time? Those companies will sell them without those stores. This at least gives them a piece of the pie.
- jchw 9mo ago
  The entire point of the free software movement is to promote free software principles and software rights. What I think many Linux distributions would prefer is a model where companies who do benefit from selling software and hardware are funding them indirectly, so they can focus on continuing to promote free software in a more neutral way, without the pressures and potentially misaligned incentives that come from running a store front can bring. There are distributions like elementary OS which are happy to sell you things with this model, though, but I just don't think it's surprising many distributions would actively prefer to not be in this position even if it leaves money on the table. This sort of principled approach is exactly why a lot of us really like Linux.
  - reissbaker 9mo ago
    It's really unfortunate the term "free software" took off rather than e.g. "libre software", since it muddies discussions like this. The point of "free software" is not "you don't have to pay," it's that you have freedom in terms of what you do with the code running on your own machine. Selling free software is not incompatible with free software: it's free as in freedom, not as in free beer.

GoblinSlayer 9mo ago

The package manager can't help with subscription schemes based on short lived licenses.

II2II 9mo ago

> I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly, fully opt-in by default of course. One of the advantages of open source software is the ability to distribute said software with relatively few restrictions. It simplifies life for the maintainers of Linux distributions, those who manage Linux systems, the end user, and software developers. Making a package manager a retail product store would complicate things for everyone. That said, the only thing preventing the distribution of proprietary software by most Linux distributions is policy. If a distribution wanted to do so, and the vendor's license allowed for permissive software distribution, they could do so. The vendor could implement their own mechanism for selling and distributing license keys. The advantage to them would be using a common software distribution method without having a middleman taking a cut. (Think shareware, or even physical software that included a license key.)

rtpg 9mo ago

> I am still surprised most Linux Distros haven't changed their package managers to allow for selling of proprietary solutions directly, fully opt-in by default of course. It's not "zero cost" but plenty of proprietary software with native linux clients will do things like set up Ubuntu package repos. You're pasting a handful of lines in the command line (or for the fancier stuff downloading the isntaller that does that for you) and you're off to the races There might be a boutique business that could help with installer/package repo mgmt for people wanting to ship linux clients and take advantage of the auto-updaters and the like. Maybe.

ErroneousBosh 9mo ago

> I would absolutely pay good money for high quality Linux compatible software, after all, its not free as in free beer. What software are you looking for? About the only thing seriously lacking is a proper competitor for Photoshop and Illustrator, really.

DerArzt 9mo ago

Is there a need for selling of solutions via the package manager? Most of the software that I install that's paid asks for a license key or asks you to sign into your already paid for account.