Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Commercial shareware authors depend on Open Source software
Share
Print
CommentsI spent part of last week at the annual Shareware Industry Conference, held in St. Louis this year, and had the opportunity to meet several hundred shareware authors. These people are not Open Source advocates. They make their money by selling proprietary software. But many of them rely on Open Source tools, and more than a few would be interested in porting their programs to Linux -- if they believed Linux users would pay for software, which they don't.
Assuming the people I met at the conference are a fair sample of the breed, the average shareware author either works alone or for a company with fewer than 10 employees, and never expects to be as rich as Bill Gates. "Success" to most shareware authors means earning enough money to support their family in typical middle-class circumstances; to have freedom to write the software they love to write on their own schedules instead of on someone else's; and to enjoy self-employment (or to work for a very small company) instead of being just another anonymous body in a corporate cubicle farm.
I saw a tremendous amount of attention devoted to usability issues. Users only pay to register shareware if they like the trial version they download for free, so every successful piece of shareware is, by definition, easy to install and run. This is a powerful incentive to make shareware user-friendly that does not exist in the Free Software community.
Shareware authors are also concerned about usability because customer service is expensive. One shareware company owner I spoke to has twice as many people doing tech support and customer service as he has actually writing code. In his case, there is little hope for changing this ratio. His company produces video-conferencing software for corporate use, and he says most of the tech support involves hardware setup and other issues not directly related to the software itself. He also says customer support is the reason he gets most of his word-of-mouth business; that in a market where there are many programs from which to choose, that all have similar functionality, his fanaticism about support is necessary, and that one of the biggest things he can offer that a larger software company cannot is that that he will, personally, work to solve a customer's problem in the middle of the night if no one else is available. Of course, this is a software product sold to corporate clients for thousands of dollars, not a $29.95 utility program for home use, and that makes a big difference. But even the authors of low-cost, user-level shareware programs seem to spend a large percentage of their time and effort on customer support, not only because happy customers mean good word-of-mouth, but also because close contact with their customers gives them ideas for future upgrades and potential added features.
Shareware authors are just as geeky, in their way, as Open Source developers, and usually just as nice. A fair number of those who attended the conference even wore the same "Good Morning Mr. Gates, I'll be Your Server Today" giant Penguin T-shirts from Penguin Computing, and various ThinkGeek fashion accessories, that you see all over the place at Linux or Open Source gatherings.
No love for Microsoft
The typical attitude I sensed toward Microsoft was along the lines of, "Yeah, Microsoft sucks, but I make my living writing Windows software so I have no choice but to deal with them." There was a great deal of interest in Mac OS X, and speculation about whether Apple would, finally, be able to grab enough market share so that it would be possible for a substantial number of shareware developers to make money purely from Mac software and cut off Windows entirely. The consensus seemed to be that a more Mac-intensive software world would be nice, but that we weren't going to see it in our lifetimes, so everyone might as well grit their teeth and put up with Microsoft, perhaps start writing more of their programs for both platforms not only because there might just be enough Mac users out there to make the effort worthwhile, but also because these smart developers are fully aware that the more software is available for Mac, the more likely ordinary users are to choose Mac over Windows in the future.
No love for Linux, either
"Linux users won't pay for software, so there's no point in writing software for Linux," or some variation on this statement, was heard over and over. A number of shareware authors, most notably CoffeeCup Software, have tried to sell Linux versions of their programs, and almost every one of them has lost money on the attempt.
CoffeeCup not only ported its original, highly popular HTML editor to Linux, but went to Linux trade shows and actively courted Linux users. At one point, according to one CoffeCup executive, "We had around 100 people per month registering our Linux editor." Compared to the money CoffeeCup poured into Linux-oriented promotions, this income was trivial. The big problem with selling to Linux users when CoffeeCup first tried it, a couple of years ago, was that "our product was geared toward beginning users, and most Linux users at the time were pretty advanced and really didn't need it all that much."
Now the CoffeeCup Linux HTML editor is a free (but not Free) download, and one CoffeeCup guy says, "It's so obsolete now, it's kind of an embarrassment. We really ought to take it down." Besides, the CoffeeCup people say, there's now an excellent GPL program called Bluefish for Linux and Unix that has much of the same functionality as CoffeeCup. "Bluefish is a lot geekier than our stuff," one of the CoffeeCup guys says, "but it's a great program, and since Linux users are a lot geekier than our average customer, they might as well use Bluefish and be happy with it."
In this crowd, FUD about GPL "infecting" other software cuts no water. Shareware authors are, by and large, programmers smart enough to see through such nonsense. They are also smart enough to realize that it's rough for proprietary programs to compete in the GPL-oriented world of Linux.
Bottom line: Don't look for Windows-oriented, consumer-oriented shareware authors to suddenly start turning out Linux ports galore. A few might test the Linux waters a little bit, but that's about all. Things might be different for people who write commercial-level software, because Linux penetration of the server and enterprise market is now strong enough that it can no longer be ignored.
Open Source tools help shareware development
Shareware developers who don't see money in writing Open Source applications or commercial Linux apps don't turn up their noses at using Open Source software. Almost every shareware developer I talked to uses Open Source somewhere along the line. The vi editor is popular. GCC use is strong. The vast majority of shareware authors' Web sites and download servers run Apache on either Linux or *BSD Unix. And more than a few of these folks run Linux desktops because, for their personal use, they prefer Linux to Windows.
A few shareware developers I met have contributed to Open Source projects. I only got one diatribe, from one person, about how GPL is the enemy of all that is Right and Good and American. The general feeling I got about GPL and other Open Source licenses was neutral; that they were good in many ways, but not necessarily for retail software. Some of the developers whose products are made primarily for corporate use spoke of using code escrow as a way to overcome potential clients' worries about small commercial developers going out of business and leaving them without the ability to update code or fix bugs (a potential problem that doesn't exist with Open Source software), and a few said that because a large percentage of their efforts and a large part of the value they offer revolve around support and customization, open-sourcing their code probably wouldn't make much difference to their incomes, but that none of their customers have ever asked to see source code. They said the marketplace was set up around a "buy the software and you get service thrown in as part of the purchase" model, and because customers are used to doing things this way they have no incentive to change.
Perhaps there is some hypocrisy to an, "I use Open Source software but I won't write Open Source software," attitude, but is it really any different from the hypocrisy of a Free Software zealot who expects all programmers to give away their work for free and support their families by waiting tables, driving taxis or laying brick?
We seem to be moving toward a general software ecosystem where many different licensing schemes all have their own niches, and the different licensing "camps" coexist happily with each other, except for a few people on the fringes who feel their personal licensing preference is the only right one and that all others are evil.
Luckily, the fringe people are rare, although both the, "All software must have commercial licenses and be owned by its creator," and the, "All software must be Free," crowd tend to be vocal out of all proportion to their respective numbers.
Meanwhile, there are a few notable cases of proprietary or "hybrid licensed" software publishers, like Codeweavers, that successfully sell to Linux users. Indeed, Codeweavers and Wine were both discussed heavily by some of the shareware authors I met, because they potentially represent a simple and inexpensive way to port Windows apps to Linux, and if Linux use continues to grow, and Linux continues to become easier to use for non-geeks, at least a few shareware authors will inevitably want to test the Linux market for their products despite past failures. And who knows? Enough of them may succeed -- or at least cover their Linux porting costs, especially if Wine helps keep those costs down -- that we may one day see enough user-level shareware applications for Linux to overcome the endless, "but there are hardly any cool desktop applications for Linux," whine that has been such a big barrier to Linux adoption by home and small office computer users.
Comments
on Commercial shareware authors depend on Open Source softwareNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Take Agent. If you've ever used the full features of Agent, you know that Pan comes in a far second as far as features and usability. And Agent is only $30 and upgrades with each major version are free. I'd be more than happy to pay $40 for a Windows and Linux version of Agent, but it probably won't happen.
I have also yet to see a really good mp3 organizer for Linux. MP3Observer is probably the best Windows organizer I've seen so far. There's nothing on Linux that comes close.
So there are two areas where there's an existing windows app that is good, cheap and has no alternative on linux.
Pan might not be an Agent competitor, but there are plenty of other Linux news agents that people like. Personally I would take Emacs/Gnus over Agent any day of the week, and there are plenty of other folks that like slrn, or whatever else.
The problem is that the Linux desktop market is pretty small to begin with, and in most categories there is already software that is "good enough." In many cases this software has a higher learning curve, but is more functional once it has been learned (in other words it is classic geek software). The prime example of this is TeX. For years Linux has lacked a classic word processor, but many Linuxers didn't mind one bit because they preferred tools like TeX and friends (LaTeX, LyX, TeXinfo, etc.). People migrating from Windows had a hard time believing that anyone could get work done in a Linux environment, and Linux users wondered how anyone got anything done on Windows.
And the example of BlueFish most certainly does not show your point. One of the 179 companies that make shareware editors for Windows found it was unprofitable to port to Linux and had a nice suggestion for an app that Linux users "might as well use" because it was "geekier".
But lets not limit ourselves to just unfounded opinions. Lets take a brief look and see if its true that most of the shareware needs are filled already in open source. Let's check out business apps.
Business apps on jumbo.com
Accounting 59
Add-Ons 104
Communication 78
Management 110
Finance 178
Industry 86
Contact 409
Inventory 34
Marketing 34
Misc 84
Presentation 12
Print/Publish 98
Business apps on osdir.com
Accounting 3
Investment 2
Point-of-sale 1
Scheduling 5
Print 8
Without getting into a feature by feature comparision, lets just admit the fact that's obvious to everyone: there are more Windows apps than Linux apps. Equally true is the fact that most people use computers for the applications. And there's another truth that's obvious to everyone: its hard to build a revenue stream from a free product. I'm sure you won't believe me, so let's see what Mandrake has to say on the subject. mandrakeforum.com/print.php?sid=1431&lang=en
Its not productive to deny the truth. Its more productive to objectively consider practical steps that might be taken to get you where you want to go. And if you want to see more people using Linux on the desktop, you might consider how to get more of the applications they want to use onto the desktop. Because the real problem with shareware on Linux isn't that there's already enough, its that there's not enough and we haven't figured out a way to change that yet.
I don't think the problem is that Linux users won't pay for software, some will. It is just given the size of the Linux user base even if every Linux user purchased a particular app (unlikely), it would only take a very, very small percentage of Windows users to exceed that number.
I think Linux is the OS that can survive long enough to become a true, vialble competitor.
Why? That's because Linux is not one company. The people who do Desktop Linux are not the same that do Embedded Linux. In other words, there is NO opportunity cost at all. People who do Web Services on Linux don't do Desktop or Embedded. There is no overlap. Those are all different people who are taking Linux in whatever direction they want.
And that's great! More power to everyone who wants to do what they want with Linux. To tell all the Desktop Linux people to give up is silly, because if they do follow your advice, they won't be piling on top of Embedded Linux the next day.
I know you don't explicitely tell anyone to give up, but that IS the subtle message, or meme, if you will, that you are sending out.
Finally, the more platform Linux thrives in, the better. Part of the attraction of Embedded Linux is that it IS DECENT on Desktop!! So the development environment is nice and pleasant to use.
Please don't shoot yourself in the foot.
meme - unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another
opportunity cost - value of all the other goods or services that we must give up in order to produce a particular good or service
So, the argument goes that the skill sets of individual developers don't typically encompass those needed for desktop applications, enterprise applications and embedded applications. Also unstated, but I'm sure the author would agree, since open source is about freedom and creativity, why should anyone be limited in their creative expression?
At the individual developer level, I completely agree. The best thing about the open source development process is that you can work on what you know and love in a community of like-minded individuals. That's such a basic aspect of open source development that it could never be taken away and doesn't even need to be promoted. Taking the community out of open source would be about as easily done and well received as taking the sun out of summer.
So I'm not really worried about the future of development of Linux applications on the PC for the forseeable future. As long as there is open source and as long as there are desktops, there will be be open source applications for the desktop.
I'm actually more concerned with changing the meme because of it impact on future opportunity cost. Most people who develop skills that apply to the desktop do so because of the current meme that says that's where the action is. However, that meme came into the open source culture from another, different, and one might even say more hostile culture of proprietary software development.
I think there is a lost opportunity cost, not in current skills, but in future skills. I've been programming for a good long time now and programming skills are veryportable. The basic software development skills like research, assessment, planning, manangement, and quality assurance are directly transferable. As are more refined software skills like OOP and UML. Then there are just the details involved in moving to a different language and learning the idiosyncrasies, which usually boils down to 'its a lot like c, but you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...'.
And its not that big of a jump from the desktop to the device, at least not across the board. I went from writing to the desktop to writing for devices in about two weeks with MS VS. Even if you knew no more than VB, you've been able to go from the desktop to the web to the enterprise to the device with little more than a $50 Wrox book. Once the environment changes, it will be very easy in that platform to move with that change. And that's why I'm concerned with changing the meme of the Linux community so that we can be in the same position.
I think the Windows desktop environment that we're familiar with now is moving on. I say this because Bill is saying this. The market has bottomed out on the way things are now with hardware and software and there needs to be a new way if only to sell more stuff. I think the more platforms that Linux works on, the better, but the prevailing meme says that the PC desktop should be the platform of choice because it is today.
And its not that I want to change individual developers. They would change with the community, which will follow its leaders. Everyone doing their own thing isn't great for Linux as a whole. In other posts, I've shown how many projects fail. And its not true that this happens in the proprietary world. You don't get start-up capital, rent space, hire employees, and then wander off to do something else. However, this happens all the time on sourceforge. Its the nature of community-driven software. This is why I'm not a fan of Linux trying to conquer every single market at the same time. Conquer one at a time. Or at least conquer one to begin with. The point is to steer the community in a direction through the community leaders so that the projects have a tendency to point in a productive direction.
The more people stop looking towards what is done already and start looking towards what could be done in the future, the better chance Linux has to survive and prosper. Not just as a community of developers, that's forever now, but as a significant if not dominant programming force. Open source development could be a meme as pervasive as closed source development, but not in an environment where there has to be relearning.
I think the current meme of battling MS for desktop supremacy as it exists today is innapropriate because its someone else's meme and that following it would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Fight your conditioned response, move forward instead of staying still, following your skills to stay free and keep an eye on community leaders like Red Hat to stay focused.
Freshmeat:
Office/Business: 780 projects
Scientific/Engineering: 1131 projects
Software Development: 4861 projects
System: 5667 projects
The only conclusion is that there are different cultures of Windows and Linux users.
Most windows users (excluding businesses) use the system that came with their PC - they use the PC for simple tasks - this is what the Windows Shareware market caters for
Most Linux users are probably software developers or have some connection with the IT industry - system managers, students of computer science, university researchers etc.
Linux users have completely different reasons for owning using a computer.
A completely different market. A completely different culture.
Is that good or bad? Neither. But there are a lot less potential Linux users than there are Windows users...
And it will take a long while for the demographic to change... Not until 50% of computers come with Linux pre-installed... and will that ever happen?
This comparison does show a point that I make when I argue that open source software projects require focus. Look at the number of projects that are started and will never reach production level. 780 business projects on freshmeat and maybe 20 on osdir. There are those that tell me that Linux can focus equally on all markets, the corporate desktop, the casual user, the enterprise, the devices, anything, because their pool of developers is so large. Lets look at osdir vs freshmeat on these subjects.
Scientific/Engineering 48
Software Development 107
System 123
Then look at the next statements. Linux users are different from Windows users. There are less Windows users and this will continue until 50% of computers come with Linux preinstalled. These things are also true.
So, the Linux community will take care of itself where the Linux community is naturally strong: engineering, software development, system development. It does not then follow that the Linux community will be equally strong in areas where its base isn't as interested.
Is this good or bad? Neither. But is it good to pursue your weaknesses to the detriment of your strengths? No. Linux has a different product than Windows. Linux has a different community than Windows. Why trying to force Linux into being a Windows clone is more popular than letting Linux develop on its strengths seems like a good idea to many still seems strange to me.
I'd guess that osdir.com is not the authoritative source on the number of Linux apps. Then, there is another problem: open source apps tend to spend a *long* time in beta. Basically, any project worth its salt stays beta until zero known bugs milestone, no matter how long it takes. OTOH, it means that a whole bunch of projects on Freshmeat are not deemed stable but are quite usable nevertheless.
That said, I'd agree that there are more Windows apps than Linux apps. That's quite obvious. But it doesn't address the main point: It's very hard for a shareware application to compete if there is *any* open source application in the related market segment.
Now, it should be obvious to just about anyone that there wouldn't be a huge market for a text editor when most current Linux users tend to prefer either a vi clone or emacs. However, as KDE and Gnome evolve into more and more complete desktops, the likelyhood that the market for the same kind of text editors that so many shareware companies currently sell for Windows system will also grow as well.
Yes, it is different. The waiters/cabbies/masons of the example aren't expecting to get a free ride for the same services from others. Now, if the waiter of the example never tipped when he ate at other restaurants, that would be hypocrisy.
software by invoking the need of a programmer
to make a living. When someone like a baker
sells some bread to a customer, nothing in
that transaction makes the buyer dependent on
the seller. That customer can easily go buy
his bread elsewhere the next time.
But when the software industry chooses to
publish proprietary software, it deliberately
tries to make the user dependent on the secrecy
of the program's sources, file formats and
protocols. Software companies typically expect
that dependency to generate future revenue (bug
fixes, upgrades, unremovable advertizing, etc).
Most people make a living that does not involve
such restrictive practices. Programmers should
at least recognize that proprietary software is
a dubious way of making a living and that the
industry needs to evolve.
I've done the pepsi taste tests 3 times and I can tell the difference between coca cola and pepsi cola every single time.
Selling proprietary software isn't dubious way of making a living. RedHat staff talking about how great embedded linux is but then trying to do a bait and switch and trying to sell you ecos --- that's a dubious way of making a living.
One thought I had was to set up a non-profit foundation that collected money from people to pay developers and maintainers of GPL software.
Maybe this could be in the form of an auction. Say you need a small business accounting package. You, and other people, would pledge to contribute what ever amount of money you wished to. Then the foundation would accept proposal, and pick the best one (maybe this would be voted on as well), then fund the project.
Other things that could be done are:
- Hardware donations to project
- Awards of cash prizes to worthy projects (like the Nobel Prize>
- Cash grants so developers could devote more time to a project during a critical phase
- Jobs for Maintainers and/or lead developers so they could work full time on a project
- Contracts to develop features or squash bug
I think a community supported model would work better for Open Source than a corporate model would.
By asking for contributions and working from a community supported model instead of a corporate mode, corporations figured that they weren't viable commercial entities and had no desire to entrust their business to a community-supported organization. It went pretty badly for them. mandrakeforum.com/print.php?sid=1431&lang=en
There are charitable organizations that contribute money to free software projects, like the Public Software Fund. One of the purposes of this fund is to allow private contributors to get a tax break on their charitable donations by doing so through a non-profit organization. So far, their biggest claim to fame is taking John Gilmore's $35K to build a P2P network for sharing RPMs. This may not attact much attention from the corporate sector since it gives them an opportunity to do something in a free, manual and unsecured manner rather than an inexpensive, automated, secure manner.
It is possible for open source software to be profitable, you just need to be innovative and not locked into the same mindset that proprietary software companies find successful. Ask Zope. I'm not sure why the community is so eager to play a game where the rules weren't written for them instead of playing on their own terms in markets where they might have more leverage, like the enterprise or embedded markets.
If Linux decides to not build a successful business model by working on their strengths and instead self-destructs by resorting to begging for spare change to fight a cause, it will be a pointless and embarassing suicide.
What I suggest is demand side and community based. Say I need a small business accounting app and I like GPL software. Well I could sit around and wait for someone to develop one, try to develop one myself if I had the skills, or give up in despair.
Now surely, I am not the only person that has this (or some other need). Basically, what I am suggesting is a community owned and controlled way to aggregrate demand and act as a catalyst to get software developed while still remaining true to the Free software ethic.
What I am not _suggesting_ is developers stand on corners with "Will code for small change signs".
People don't need Microsoft or other proprietary software companies. What they do need is the software tools to get their job done.
So why not cut out the middleman and go straight to the (open) source?
Say I need a small business accounting app and I like GPL software. Well I could sit around and wait for someone to develop one, try to develop one myself if I had the skills, or give up in despair.
The third option, if you like your business more than the GPL, is to buy an accounting package. If I put my money into a pool and waited for the pool to grow enough to attract developers to get the software written, I'm probably out of business. The business owner you described is a straw man.
And how much money do I put into the pool? If I put in more money, can my needs come first? If someone comes in later, do their needs take precedence over mine? What if the project needs $100K to get a decent accounting package out in one year, tested, documented and with a support staff. When do I put in my money and how much? Do I pony up $10K in Jan or $1K in Dec? What if its late? I think we just went over the problem of the commons in a different context.
So why would I pay a middleman who will deliver a tested, boxed product with a support staff and a software escrow option? Because I'm in the business of business, not in the business of supporting the GPL. Because while people don't need Microsoft or other proprietary software companies, they do need software tools to get the job done. So we understand that businesses need the job done, they don't need software companies per se, no matter what their licensing. Microsoft and other proprietary companies happen to have that software on the shelf for sale today.
If you are asking for anything other than fair payment in exchange for goods and services rendered, you're begging. If you're asking businesses to make a leap of faith in order to use your license of choice rather than get the job done today, you're begging. Linux doesn't need to beg if it doesn't want to, but it could be forced to by deliberately becoming unprofitable serving a market that doesn't need it while ignoring others that do.
Sadly I don't think there is any other model either, we are going to see many many companies going out of business in a couple of years and developers loosing their jobs.
There's one key observation that Adam Smith nailed in 1776, and has confounded attempts to push it aside by many impressively bright and energetic people since: capitalism is ultimately the best way to match consumers with suppliers, and to create new markets and inventions.
What most shareware developers don't get is that you can create the demand by releasing their product for multiple OS's.
Then they remove the "My favorite app isn't available" problem and more users will try linux. As more users use linux, the developers profit grows. But by not making their software available in linux, eventually some open source developer takes on the task. If the open source version is good enough, it usually get ported to multiple OS's case in point: Apache, OpenOffice. And if the open source version is better than the previous shareware, that developer just lost revenue their source. Linux has really only been viable as a desktop OS for a short time, but look how it continues to evolve. If the shareware developers don't move quickly, they could wake up one day and wonder what just happened. I don't believe that overnight linux will rule and windows will rollover and die. I think that microsoft will slowly degrade to irrelevance, mostly by their own doing. Think about it! Has anyone ever maintained an absolute monopoly forever? Ford, AT&T, IBM, Xerox have all lost their absolute grip, so will microsoft. It is inevitable.
Preper to be free labour for Redhat ladies and gentlemen.
Of course there's also Quanta Gold from thekompany.com (a commercial fork of the free software version by some of the origional developers.)
In short there's three excellent HTML editors on Linux, and then there's CoffeeCup which their programmers admitted wasn't very good. And they expected people to buy it?
I have started with Frontpage to make sites. I have since upgraded to Dreamweaver for most work. I still must use frontpage for the few sites that I have that contain over 50 pages due to the ability to track/reposition pages with their map view/auto hyperlink update/drag-drop of pages, etc. Dreamweaver's similar feature is just not up to snuff.
But I would prefer using an open source solution. Due to a hard drive crash and my development box being temporarily down, I am now using both Quanta and Bluefish. They both need work. They both are not evolved enough for regular use. And us developers that aren't in love with Vi, and hand coding, still need the WYSIWYG feature. I like Dreamweaver because of the dual view: WYSIWYG and underlying source, which helps with getting a better handle on the code.
I have Frontpage/Dreamweaver/Windows on one box, also one dual boot, and three boxen with Linux/Bluefish/Quanta Plus. I would really like to use Linux for everything, but this web editor issue is the major holdback for switching completely over. I must use what I can work with to get the job done. Period. Nothwithstanding the Borg, assimilation, one world order, etc.
1. Basically, most Linux/BSD users are very technical or at least highly savvy and computer literate. Most people don't mind (or actually LOVE) command line and editing config files.
2. Much open source software is really top notch anyway. Pan gives me so many features that I would never even *want* to look at anything else. Agent might have 100x more features than Pan, but the point is, once satisfaction level is reached, more features is not as important. If I was dissatisfied with Pan, then I'd be actively on a look out for a new news reader.
There is not much that can be done about #2. However, I think there are many holes in #2 because not all software is fun to write.
Now, #1 is going to change as more casual users switch to Linux (probably not BSD though, BSD doesn't target desktop except this one company I heard about). But this really is the Chicken and the Egg problem like the other poster said!
Do we get more friendly apps first and THEN people switch to Linux desktop? Or do people switch to Linux desktop FIRST and THEN we get more friendly desktop APPS?
What do you think? I think neither side will really be the "first", but which of the above should be "more first?". I think if we are talking about the casual users, it is less likely they will be the first. It is more likely that shareware authors will be the first (or some other commercial authors) because they are more technically adept to make the switch and because we all know that customers/consumers are kings.
However, if there are not yet enough casual desktop users, some people/companies/shareware authors have to be willing to take a loss and do it for the love of the OS/freedom and/or for their own future when they will be able to make decent money seeling apps for Linux.
My point is... Linux is what we make of it. If both sides wait for the other to jump in first, then nothing will happen.
o Roblimo showed the way in the fact that shareware is very front end centric in their effort to make software easy to use. Just the thing that Linux lacks.
o To leverage the synergy the shareware authors should be developing frontends and tool kits and the install programs to go with it. I think alot of nongeeky linux endusers would pay $20 even if the core was a Open Source program, so long as it had a good GUI and easy install.
o There are business niches that need to be filled for the Linux platform. A shareware-Open Source pairing could fill the gap.
Just a thought.
A *big* problem of porting apps to Linux is GUI
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 25, 2002 03:10 AMWorse still, there are multiple API's, such as KDE and GNOME. You CAN write apps that run under both environments, but you can NOT write apps that USE the "best of both worlds", and mix-and-match API sets under one program (Microsoft has older and some duplicating API's, and sometimes it's faster to use a 'depreciated' API as a short-term hack).
Lastly, the general consensus in Linux is GTK/GNOME is the future (certainly has room to improve! ), but KDE/Qt has a cleaner API and is easier to master. How sad then that GTK/GNOME is free for any kind of development, while Qt costs thousands of dollars with no "middle of the road" license for shareware developers. These guys DO love what they do, but can not afford to make their code GPL (so to use Qt/Free) or buy an expensive Qt/Commercial license.
There's plenty of reasons to not develop Linux. The ones I cite here are valid: there's a MUCH bigger "barrier to entry" in the Linux market compared to Windows, when it comes to Shareware.
Re:A *big* problem of porting apps to Linux is GUI
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 25, 2002 04:05 AMRe:A *big* problem of porting apps to Linux is GUI
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 25, 2002 04:05 PMAlso realize that some of those libraries will compile with MS Windows and other operating systems as well, so writing cross-platform apps should be easier...
That's the big problem. Crossover office and Winex are being traded for free over kazaa and direct connect.
Bahaah
Face it, *nobody* really wants to pay for software, it's a dead-end. At least Open Source understands that altogether.
Software development never has, and never will pay as a job, unless you cheat your customers.
You know what I mean.
Why not use BSD license to enter Linux market?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 26, 2002 10:22 AMRe:Why not use BSD license to enter Linux market?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 28, 2002 12:52 AMWhat's the confusion? I'm not confusing the BSD license with the BSD operating system. The GPL is holding back application companies from porting their windows applications. That's it. Plain and simple. Whether the GPL or the BSD licenses apply to just the OS, or to applications as well (they do) is besides the fact. The GPL is holding back windows applications. I'd rather have an application without the code, than not have the application at all. When Quanta and Bluefish catch up with Dreamweaver and Frontpage in the next decade or two, then I won't worry about it. Till then, Linux needs the help of Windows application companies.
Re:Why not use BSD license to enter Linux market?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 28, 2002 11:02 PMThere is nothing else, really, that's small enough for a shareware programmer to write in a decent amount of time - and also useful in a way that current Free tools are not.
I use only Linux, and I would be happy to pay for some good, fun shareware games for my system.
If micropayments could ever be done right, creating games could be a great way for those who program Free Software to supplement their income. (if said people are inclined to write games)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that's what I think, anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
The real problem with Shareware on Linux
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 25, 2002 12:08 AM#