Well linux stopped attracting me when major software corps didn't came up with any paid software so far. There are very few paid apps for linux and i guess too much clutter in license and open-source issue is the reason behind it. Besides that if OS is free, how come many customers are going to pay me for building custom apps for them (i came across many such people who think like this i.e. why pay for apps if OS is free ?). Consultancy, maintenance, support will not sustain the developers business(atleast solo developer will have hard time).
-mahesh2k
I think you've really nailed a key failure in the Linux community.
The Linux community seems to have attracted too many people that are attracted to "money free" versus "freedom free", and that entire cheapo "I'm not going to pay for anything" mind-set has basically become synonymous with Linux and open source. It's not created a healthy ecosystem for Linux, and Linux has suffered for that.
-Renegade
Sorry, but I have to make a stand and state my opinion that these are BIG misconceptions.
There is nothing in any license that says you cannot or should not charge money for your work.
The GPL license only protects the use and distribution of GPL code.
I have seen software authors give many legitimate reasons why they don't develop for Linux, and "users are cheapskates" is the most LAME excuse you could possibly use.
Of course that element exists, it even exists in the Windows community (I think you call them "pirates"), but anybody who takes their choice of Linux use as some sort of entitlement to "free everything" is frankly not worth the bother, not the target you'd aim at if you were smart, and I am certain not the majority of the Linux community.
Personally, I greatly admire the folks who have taken the bold step to open-source their software, and I think those applications are all the better for it.
Would the Gimp be a better Photoshop contender if it were closed-source?
I seriously think not.
Would I buy it if I had to pay for it?
Sure, if the price was right and the features attractive; no different than any other software.
Like Zaine said, if Adobe made a feature-for-feature Linux version of Photoshop, you can bet there would be a substantial market for it.
Not huge of course, (what do you expect from 1% of the desktop market?
) but certainly worth the effort and it would start a nice ball rolling.
How do I know?
Just look at a few proofs (admittedly small, but they are
real) from the gaming market:
Linux
cheapskates users average donation was almost
twice that of the other platforms?
5, 10, 12% of sales (sales!) coming from users of a platform that only has 1% desktop market share?
Give me a break...
- 2- With things like Unigine in active development, the divide between DirectX and OpenGL is narrowing.
Really. - 3- Despite the recent flap about a Steam client coming to Linux, and then suddenly not, I seriously doubt all that effort on Valve's part was for nothing.
Once they see the demand, you KNOW it'll happen.
I mean, come on, if there's money to be made,
even just 5% more (according to the evidence), why WOULDN'T you?
I just realized I may have snarked a bit in this post; let it be known I don't mean any malice to anybody, but I do stand by my opinions.
It's just I very much resent being called out for being cheap just because I use an operating system that's free (as in beer) and I'm sure there are MANY who stand with me.
There are MANY reasons other than "it's free" that I use Linux and because the web is full of others who have stated those reasons much more eloquently, I will refrain from enumerating them here.
I open my pocketbook where I can, when I can, and I'm sure that folks who pay for the majority of their software do much the same.
P.S. Mono can eat my shorts.[/list]
Recent Posts
.
