Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

If You Port It, They Will Come 377

Posted by timothy from the or-they-will-get-by-regardless dept.
An anonymous reader submits "An excellent rant^H^H^H^Harticle is up over at LinuxLaboratory.org, encouraging proprietary companies that make software for Windows to provide a full-featured equivalent for Linux. The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software. But many companies that port software to Linux will only ship stripped-down versions, leading to people not buying the software when they can buy the complete version for Windows, then the company not providing the software for Linux because it didnt sell. The argument is made that if the Linux version were equivalent to the Windows version, then people will buy it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

If You Port It, They Will Come More

If You Port It, They Will Come

Comments Filter:
  • And in their next announcement, they encourage M$ to close shop for the betterment of mankind....

    -Sean

    • Catch 22 of economics (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Strych9 ( 126433 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:25PM (#4257791)
      Linux has how much of the desktop market ? 10% ?

      Why would a company devote time and resources for only a 10% return where they could spend 100% effort into marketing to a 90% MS desktop market. Added to that whatever FUD that MS or such pulls out with GPL myths etc, and you will scare people away from developing for linux.

      And at the same time, if there were all the good ports of software for linux, I think a lot more people would have switched to it.

      A catch-22. I dont' know the solution
      • A catch-22. I dont' know the solution


        The solution might just be MacOS X. Granted I haven't used it much yet (just got my new powerbook), but with it being BSD on the backend, how hard could it be for them to port their code to Linux after porting to OS X? Hell, some enterprising person(s) might be able to write (if there doesn't already exist) API hooks to emulate or run Aqua in X, much like XDarwin does the opposite, so they wouldn't even have to port the graphics interfaces over.

        I'll admit I don't know much about the details of porting from one OS to another. However, if Office X now runs on what's basically a BSD backend, how hard would it be to port it again to Linux? (I won't hold my breath even if someone responded with 2 minutes as an answer)
        • The Aqua API hooks are much harder than you make it sound. Aqua _is_ MacOS X. The BSD base is nice, but it's very little of what the non-server applications use.
        • Apple supposedly has about 5 percent of the market. Microsoft has already ported Office. Adobe and a very small number of competitors have the graphics design business wrapped up. Macromedia sells into the same market slice. Other than games, there is no market for software used in the home. Realistically, what's left that could be profitable?

      • If I was a shrink-wrapped sw developer, I would go for Windows first, then Mac (where the profit margin is much higher, if the stories are to be believed) and then I might consider Linux - however, I imagine the support costs for selling Linux software would be higher (the key word being *imagine* - I don't have any metrics to support this statement, so feel free to support/refute it :)

        When it comes to desktop software, Linux is always a distant third - which basically sucks.

        I don't think it's because people wouldn't buy it though - I figure it's because it would be difficult to support - though I don't know if it would be that much worst than supporting windows software...

        Wow, what the hell was my point again?
        • Actually, even though the Linux market is much smaller, there's less competition with other vendors there, so if you produce a quality program, you're pretty much guaranteed to get a good number of sales.

          I can think of several applications that would probably sell well on Linux... lots of edutainment type programs (Oregon Trail, etc), a Print-Shop type program that would easily create greeting cards and banners and posters, a good personal finance program (which TheKompany apparently has in Kapital), a QuickBooks workalike that really is as easy as QB...

          If ALL that software was available and hardware companies offered it as a preload option, seriously, why would more people not consider Linux?
      • It doesn't matter how much of the total market uses Linux, it matters how much of your target market uses linux. If half of their target market uses linux then developing a version for linux does make sense. How much of the market does Apple have? Maybe 10%? But Macromedia puts our a very good Dreamweaver for it. And Microsoft ported Office, not just to Mac, but to the bleeding edge Mac OS X. (And it looks pretty, BTW. Though I think this Powerbook keyboard could be a bit bigger, I've got big hands.)

        You're right, it is a bit of a catch-22, but we must remember that the gross numbers are less important than the net numbers. Much like your gross income is less important than the net ammount you take home.

    • He makes some valid points, but I find it rather funny that in the same breath he berates Microsoft for poor standards support and then bitches about how pooly the 'standard' software packages run on Linux.

      Maybe Microsoft doesn't support all the open standards (w3c, rfc, et al) 100%, but one thing it does do well is support its developers (developers, developers...) Most windows applications I have (including some 16-bit and DOS apps) still run on XP. Obvisouly there are exceptions: apps that make use of OS-specific features (either by necessity, or accident). But on the whole they just work. I remember one of the win95 developers telling me that in one particular win3.1 app that was using a very unorthodox method for finding the address of some system data-structure (instead of just calling the approved API), they had to add code to the kernel to patch the app to 'do the right thing' when it loaded.

      On the other hand, binary compatiblity on Linux just sucks ass. Library interfaces are constantly changing without recourse to backwards compatibility (libc is a prime example, as is the gcc3 debacle). This doesn't matter if all you have to do is './configure && make install', but for software vendors shipping binary-only installs it's a nightmare, and you end up having to support different versions for all the different, incompatible configurations that people have on their machines. It doesn't help that many distros have different ideas about where things should go and how to put them there.

  • ... winex [transgaming.com] seems to ork pretty good for most of my windows needs...
    • What is winex and how does it differ from WINE, why was their a fork?
      • WineX is specifically aimed at the Linux gaming market. It was forked to make money (although they do from time to time re-incorporate patches into the main tree). CrossOver is similar, except that they are more active with their re-incorporation of patches.
        • No, sorry your wrong. Winex was forked because the makers are under NDA. They used copy-protection circumvention devices (as in DMCA) but to do so legally they cannot give the code away. It was forked because the old WINE license required all source to be given away. They changed it and now can sell their product without breaking any laws.

          Winex DOES charge money but not for all things. If you dont subscribe you can download the CVS version which contains no copy-protection code and is pure source. For $5 a month you get constant software updates, ability to vote on development, and technical support. Also once oyu pay you get access to all the binaries that you cant get otherwise.

          So really in my opinion Winex is the best thing since emacs (an invention so useful it can almost replace sliced bread but i think thats a few patches away) ;)

          • Re:i dunno about this... (Score:3, Informative)

            by johnnyb ( 4816 )
            packeteer:

            No, sorry your wrong. Winex was forked because the makers are under NDA.

            ***

            Nope. Sorrry. The fork was done simply to make money. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is the truth.

            ***

            packeteer:

            It was forked because the old WINE license required all source to be given away.

            ***

            Again, incorrect. The _old_ WINE license is BSD, which means anyone can use it for any reason.

            ***

            packeteer:

            Winex DOES charge money but not for all things. If you dont subscribe you can download the CVS version which contains no copy-protection code and is pure source.

            ***

            Thus destroying your original argument. Remember, the source they give is under the _Alladin_ license, not the LGPL or BSD like Wine (Wine's new license is the LGPL, although I believe they are still maintaining a BSD tree).

            ***

            packeteer:

            So really in my opinion Winex is the best thing since emacs (an invention so useful it can almost replace sliced bread but i think thats a few patches away) ;)

            ***

            I won't disagree with you there. Actually, I think the release of Blender as open-source might be a _bit_ cooler, but maybe not. Also CrossOver Office is pretty cool.

  • Release them on the same disc! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by compupc1 ( 138208 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:21PM (#4257775)
    Really what would be nice would be if companies would include both Windows and Linux versions on the same disc. The two versions can share most of their data files and resources -- only the executable portions of the applications need be modified. If both versions sit on the same disc, would that not solve the problems and lower long-term production costs? Plus it would force companies to make the two versions more similar.
    • You can get lower quantities of CDs (~1000) pressed with inserts and jewel cases for around a buck a piece, and I don't mean CDRs. Saving $1 vs. having a whole separate or multifunction development team to redo significant portions of the application....they would have to sell a ridiculous number of applications to recoup that.

      It's not the material or recurring costs that are the problem.
    • The only problem this would solve is the problem of costs associated with distributing two versions. But the cost of printing CDs in volume are minimal. Your solution does not solve the real problem, that is the costs associated with DEVELOPING and marketing the linux version.
  • Corel released a full version of Wordperfect 8 for Linux. How many people actually bought it? Apparently not enough to make them want to update it to the current version.

    • Corel Wordperfect 8 for Linux was so horribly bad, I actually quit using it and moved over to StarOffice 5 instead. I'd rather use a bloated, buggy, fugly interface than a piece of software that is so confusingly laid out, and so very non-conformant to the OS it's running.

      Blech. It's no wonder that when M$ bought out Corel it didn't affect the Linux community one iota.
    • Corel released a full version of Wordperfect 8 for Linux. How many people actually bought it? Apparently not enough to make them want to update it to the current version.

      Yeah it worked by working with wine and it SUCKED!!!! It was in no way as good as the Windows version. I was VERY disapointed with it and after I bought it, I recomended others to NOT buy it. After that, I had no respect for Corel as a "Linux" company.
    • All of the responses below are about WordPerfect 9 for Linux, which was indeed based on Wine.

      WordPerfect 8 for Linux, which was available at least a two years before then, was a native Linux application based on Motif and worked very well indeed. It's the same application released by Corel for a number of different Unix systems.

      It was as cheap as $29.00 at the local CompUSA by the time WordPerfect Office 9 for Linux was released, and yet it still wasn't selling.
      • Umm...no. I bought Corel Linux from CompUSA to try it out. It came with Wordperfect 8, and a huge manual.

        I read through the manual a bit, and was slightly impressed. Then I realized that other products for Windows and Linux do the job better, so I didn't use it.

        Abiword, Kword, and OpenOffice suit my needs, and I like it better. I also like the fact that I can compile it and upgrade it; I'm not stuck with version 8. I therefore have had no motivation to buy WordPerfect.

        So here's the real thing:
        1) Make a product for Linux in an area of the market that isn't already dominated by free software.
        2) Make sure people actually use such a product.

        Do you think Nero would have any success making CD-RW software in Linux, when CD-Record is already as capable?

        On the other hand, adaptec would do quite well if they made quasi-binary UDF drivers for Linux, because nothing else (that works) exists.
        • Perhaps AbiWord, KWord or OpenOffice Writer work for well you, but none of them even begins to compare with WordPerfect for professional writers or secretaries -- give me a break, the functionality simply isn't there!

          The area of professional-quality office software is not dominated by free software in Linux -- frankly, there isn't any! OpenOffice is finally starting to come close with the 6.0 release, but still suffers on the stability and format compatibility front. I still use WordPerfect for Linux every day and crossover office when I need to use MS Office.

          There are no Linux equivalents. For a big writing project or serious work, give me WordPerfect 8 over AbiWord or KWord any old day. AbiWord and Gnumeric? KWord and KSpread? I repeat -- give me a break. Obviously you are a computer professional and not a professional in some other industry... a word processor is a word processor is a word processor, but there are inifinite shades of nuanced difference between bash 1.14 and bash 2.0, right?

          And by the way, I'd buy Nero for Linux in a heartbeat.

      • Actually, WP8 was usable, but did have a number of bugs (mostly graphics and printing related), had very annoying and limited printing setup, required libc5 when many people had libc6 and didn't even know what to install to get libc5, and had basically no support from Corel beyond the C_Tech program. And when there were bugs, all we could do was report them to Corel and tell users "There's been no schedule announced for a service pack at this time."

        There never was a service pack. Fixes were made, but the only way to get them was to get Corel Linux OS deluxe, and if you were using WP8/Server edition, you were screwed, as the fixes weren't released for that.

  • I support these claims.

    Take VMWare for example. The Linux version is not only full featured, but is actually more robust and rigged with stuff like SCSI emulation.

    • What I forgot to write was, that I've heard more people considering to buy licenses for the Linux version than for the Windows version.

      My point is that individuals and companies are aware to Linux's robustness, and are willing to pay.

  • Good Software?? (Score:3, Funny)

    by TalShiar00 ( 238873 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:26PM (#4257795) Homepage
    This article erroneously make the assumption that the windows version is good software :)

  • Cheap skates ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Krapangor ( 533950 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:28PM (#4257810) Homepage
    The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software.

    You mean like these guys who posted serial numbers for the Linux version of Opera here at Slashdot ? (at an Opera article some months ago)
    And like these people who would rather download distro iso instead of buying a full distribution ?
    And like these people who would use OpenOffice because it's for free instead of paying a very moderate price for SunOffice ?
    There main arguments has in fact already proven wrong: Open Source users are unfortunately often cheap skates.
    This "stripped-down" argument is just a bad excuse for warezed Windows programs.

    • What about the people who put cracks for popular Windows software on their websites?
      Or the people who would rather pirate Windows XP than buying it?
      Or the people who make a copy of the Office 2000 CD from their office and install it at home?
      Does this mean Windows users are cheap skates too? Then why do companies bother to develop for Windows?
      Remember this: do not generalize the entire population!

      • Re:Cheap skates ? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MisterBlister ( 539957 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @04:16PM (#4257999) Homepage
        In the Windows world, though, there are so many potential paying customers that the cheapskate theives can get lost in the noise.

        Given just raw numbers, every desktop Linux user who steals software (for example, using a stolen-serial Opera) is equal to about 10000 (at least, maybe more) Windows users using stolen software.

        If Linux users want more support the community is going to have to hold itself to a higher standard.

        • "If Linux users want more support the community is going to have to hold itself to a higher standard."

          I'm obliged to force my own moral values on anybody who downloads a set of software free from the internet? Exactly how many people must I convince?

          As the author said, the Windows empire was built by thieves, installing microsoft software without payment. But people still develop for windows. Go figure.

    • Re:Cheap skates ? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by oconnorcjo ( 242077 )
      You mean like these guys who posted serial numbers for the Linux version of Opera here at Slashdot ? (at an Opera article some months ago)
      And like these people who would rather download distro iso instead of buying a full distribution ?


      Just because SOME Linux users are like that, it does not mean they ALL are. Every group has thier "cheap skates" (such as the people who pirate MS Office). If we judge the "whole" based on the "worst in humanity" then we would all be labeled pimps and prostitutes who kill just for the fun of it. BTW, I am not trying to imply that being cheap has anything to do with the "worst in humanity".

    • Re:Cheap skates ? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Shelled ( 81123 )
      Not even decent as a troll, and your concept of proof-of-fact won't get you to the Nobel podium anytime soon. In seven years of using and supporting MS software, I rarely meet anyone outside of businesses who purchased Windows or the Office suites. Games - yes, core - no. Most 'borrow' from work or friends. Windows users are no less inclined to part with cash than Linux users, it's just the latter come by their software honestly.

  • ACs are not karma whores (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:29PM (#4257811)

    I can't help but get the feeling that companies like Real Networks, Adobe, Macromedia and yes, even IBM think that us penguins are all just about the cheapest birds on the entire face of the technology ecosphere, or whatever Microsoft is calling it these days (oh yeah, they think we're cheap, too). At the same time, Linux, one of the flagship products of the open source/free software movement, is such a buzzword that all of these companies - and many others - want to somehow associate themselves with the community. As a result, we see things like Real Player, Adobe Acrobat, IBM's ViaVoice and other popular programs being ported to Linux. This all sounds great on the surface, but truth be told, these products are only wannabe imitations of their fully functional cousins that work wonderfully under Windows (for as long as you can get Windows to work, anyway).

    Since a large number of Linux users are at least a wee bit more technical than the average Windows user, we're all aware of this sort of strange 'fleecing-that's-not-really-a-fleecing'. We can't call it a fleecing, because we don't pay for a lot of this software. But we're aware that the Linux versions of many software titles just don't work like they do under Windows. In some cases, it's subtle. In other cases, the software comes with a disclaimer that "features x, y and z don't work under Linux". In some other extreme cases, the Linux version is so different that it's given a completely different version name to indicate that it's been stripped. Then the executives look down from their ivory towers and wonder why we don't buy their software. To top it all off, they use this sluggish market performance (read: poor excuse at an attempt to support Linux) as justification to discontinue their line of Linux products. In the meantime, they've gotten their good press, and placed a chip on the word 'Linux' on their Buzzword Bingo cards.

    Well, this situation just sucks, and I'm here to tell the commercial software companies: 'If you port it, we will pay'. I talk to other Linux users all the time who say to me: 'If Company X ported Product Y, I'd pay full price for it'. I can't even begin to count how many copies of 'Dreamweaver for Linux' Macromedia would sell if it became available. If ViaVoice for Linux was as good as it is under Windows, I'd be using it now instead of typing up this story in Mozilla. I'm just not going to pay for a cheap imitation. I can get a cheap imitation for free! Freshmeat is loaded with, among many other wonderful things, free knockoffs of popular software, or cool little tools that you can combine to get the job done. I'll work through that before I justify making crap versions of decent software just so a company can say 'we support linux', when that's not really the case.

    Linux, for me, is a choice I made. It's my operating system of choice. It doesn't mean that I'm cheap or poor or that I refuse to pay for software. It means that I have some shred of independent thought, and maybe even a bit of intelligence. It means I'm not stupid enough to pay $400 for an inferior OS so I can check email and surf the web when I can do all of that and 1,000,000 other things for absolutely nothing. However, if Windows was as fast, secure, stable and reliable as Linux, AND had all the applications under the sun, I'd probably pay for that, too. It's not really about hating Microsoft, though they're fun to pick on, and it's not about being unbelievably cheap. It's about having a choice and using the two brain cells I have to make and justify a decision.

    So if I'm willing to pay for software, why not just run Microsoft on one of my 7 home machines and pay for software to run on it? Well, because Windows is *not* as fast, reliable and stable as Linux - and don't get me started on support for standards. What am I paying for then? The ability to run Dreamweaver? On an OS that, even after 17 years and countless versions still doesn't come close to being stable, reliable or secure (or fast, or standards compliant...)? If I did this today, I'd be paying $350 for Dreamweaver, and $300 for XP. That's $650 to run one piece of software.

    If this sounds like I'm implying that I don't use Dreamweaver *only* because it runs on an inferior OS, then you're hearing right. For 75% of the things I'd use it for, like this article, Dreamweaver is overkill. However, in the penguin's constant pursuit of 'more power' and 'killer apps' and 'more features' and stuff like that, if it ran on Linux I'd buy it for the 25% of the time that it would actually be the right tool for the job (that, and I'd be basically voting with my dollars in support of Macromedia's move). This assuming it wasn't a cheap knockoff of Dreamweaver, of course... see above.

    As with many things in the open source world, the "State of the Source" is changing. Software like the GIMP, Mozilla and Apache is getting better. Documentation for open source titles is becoming as copious as for Windows-based software. There are as many books on PHP as there are ASP. As many books on Apache as IIS, and they just keep coming (O'Reilly has one coming about 'Building Apps with Mozilla' - mmmmm). Paying for support has also become a very real, viable option for open source software. There are plenty of programs out there that install with a click of the mouse - user friendliness makes tremendous leaps daily. As the components of the open source software market begin to (more closely) mirror the rest of the market, a vendors *time* to market in this arena will become more and more critical. So I say to you, Macromedia, Adobe, IBM, Roxio, Real, Apple (Quicktime, Hello?): Port your stuff while you still have a chance to get my money. I'm less likely to *look* for a free alternative if I know I can get the real thing for my OS of choice (again, assuming it works). We're really not too poor or cheap to pay for good software. We're just too smart to pay for really *bad* software, and many of us are technical enough to know the difference.

  • DUH (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ljaguar ( 245365 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:29PM (#4257812) Homepage Journal
    Holy crappy developemental platform Obvious man!

    Which came first?
    Poor Linux port sales or poor featured linux port? or...

    Not so cool environment for commercial programs??

    Let's face it. Linux programs are high upkeep projects. Wrote a motif software? People call it ugly. Wrote your own widget? People still bitch. Wrote it in GTK 1? Gotta upgrade to GTK 2 now. Nevermind all those bitching KDE users. Go ahead, write it with QT3 and the fancy KDE3 integration. I'm still bitching; I use windowmaker. It's x86 only? Mac linux people whine. It doesn't work with the latest glibc? It's redhat only? WTF is this .rpm only thing? Why aren't you taking advantage of XRENDER? I want my aa fonts, dammit. Where the ALSA version? It doesn't cut and paste right! (It never will. As long as gnome and kde doesn't work perfectly with each other, it ain't working on one of them.)

    Think of all the varieties of linux. To cater to every single one of them out there, we need exactly what we have now: open source projects with volunteers and an active community. That doesn't sound like commercial software to me.
    • Good call, linux is such a moving target it makes it difficult (read: costly) to support. Especially when there are so many environmental variables to deal with. That being said, I use macosx.

    • Re:DUH (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Dunkalis ( 566394 )
      I can run GTK1 and GTK2 apps side by side on WindowMaker. I can run KDE apps on WindowMaker. If you have a big enough Mac Linux audience, you can cross-compile it to a Mac. Statically link a fail-safe binary, and have another one linked to stuff you can assume your audience has. I run SuSE and Red Hat RPMs on Debian, no problem. If its not compiled for ALSA, we have OSS emulation. I'm able to cut and paste between every single one of my applications, and these include Qt, GTK, Xaw3d, Motif, and the Athena widget ones! Select text, middle click. Done.

      If you run a relatively modern distro, you should be able to avoid all of these problems.

      • Re:DUH (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MisterBlister ( 539957 )
        To some degree you are right that these issues are getting handled, but its still going to take a long time for the perception of things to catch up with the reality. Consider that as a Windows programmer, the UI code you wrote back in 1995 still works unchanged with updated look and feel if you used the standard Windows control APIs. The same code under UNIX/Linux was likely using a long-since abandoned widget API and to keep it looking up to date would have gone through multiple UI rewrites.

        Gnome and KDE are both great projects, but its going to take a couple more years before they are as attractive a platform to developers as Win32 is.

        • I think with version 3.0, KDE has started to mature and stabilise as a development platform. In many cases, updating your code for KDE 3 is just a few small changes, as opposed to GTK/GNOME 2, which has had a major rewrite. KDE already went through this with version 1->2, but back then there were far less KDE apps as there are GTK apps now. Hell, Evolution isn't going to see a GTK2 port for quite a while yet.
        • I'm sorry, but you guys must mistake Windows 2000/XP for being a platform that can run all DOS and Windows 32 code.

          Oh, wait a minute... It can't.

          So basically, your remarks mean squat. Windows apps from only a few years ago fail to run. Some games still don't work in Windows XP.

          In most cases, yes, they will work. But so will older apps on Linux. All old Linux apps run on my machine, as do all new apps. Only *once* has an app failed to work on an upgrade- Opera, which requires an old version of QT? Technically, I could have solved it by downloading the version that included the linked libraries.... *Ahem*? Did you hear that? INCLUDED. Like most Windows apps do, you can include libraries and link against them. Instead though, I opted to install QT2.x alongside my 3.x/KDE 3 installation.

          I never have any problems.

          It sounds like you guys are more people trying to spread bullshit lies about something that doesn't really exist. Really, must you berate other products because you don't understand them?

          I have plenty of karma, so do what you will. I'm just sick of these trolls spreading doubt and lies among everyone.
          • Most programs that use the Win32, Win-16 or DOS APIs will run fine on XP/2K. The apps that have problems are those that step outside the bounds of those APIs: writing directly to hardware on DOS/Win16, using undocumented/kernel APIs, drivers, VxDs, etc...

    • Re:DUH (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 14, 2002 @04:32PM (#4258056)
      I completely agree. It's too hard to support software on Linux. I don't think "GUI apps" for Linux are going to fly for quite a while now.

      I've been trying to run my business on Linux for a while, but the pain to do the following keeps XP on my laptop until I can afford OS X:

      * CD label printing

      * CD burning (half the GUI tools out haven't been updated to include support for +24X CDRWs -- yeah, it's just a flag, I could go into the source and change, but my ancient copy of Padus DiscJuggler doesn't give me this trouble -- it's nice than any CD burning app around)

      * Accounting. You run a business, you need accounting. Invoices, packing slips, debits and credits. Linux apps aren't there yet, at any reasonable price.

      * A GUI ftp client -- gFTP has trouble with directory uploads.

      * Label printing -- I ship a lot of packages. Label printing is more of a pain in Linux than on Windows. For this, I'll give Linux props -- high-priced commercial apps will do this fine. On Windows, it's easier on the low end.

      Old media support in Linux is pretty good, newer media support isn't. GUI controls on Windows tend to be better -- workflow considerations in more complicated applications tend to be better thought out.

      Text-based apps and server software still rules on Linux/BSD though.

      I think Apple has a great chance here. They have the best of both worlds -- a commercial, proprietary layer for commercial software to exploit. Native guts for *NIX apps. If they broaden their hardware and lower their pricing, they should be able to grow nicely. They may not care about that though.
      • Konqueror supports ftp out of the box and with the upcoming KDE 3.1 release will support a ssh/scp client, that is much better than ftp. ("fish:/", check it out, it's great. Because every Linux-box comes with ssh/scp preinstalled it's *the* ideal solution to quickly share files between boxes without having to install/configure NFS, SMB or ftp.)
      • CD burning (half the GUI tools out haven't been updated to include support for +24X CDRWs -- yeah, it's just a flag, I could go into the source and change, but my ancient copy of Padus DiscJuggler doesn't give me this trouble -- it's nice than any CD burning app around)
        May I suggest gcombust? I've actually had better experiance with it than both EZCD Creator and Nero. I also love how it actually tells you the NUMBERS when you're trying to pack a CD instead of putting some inprecise bar on the screen. The "Optimize" button has come in handy several times as well. Oh, it supports burners up to 100x.

    • Re:DUH (Score:2)

      by Micah ( 278 )
      Good points, but it's not nearly as bad as you make it sound. At least not anymore.

      Linux Standard Base [linuxbase.org], people....

    • Re:DUH (Score:2, Informative)

      by rikkus-x ( 526844 )
      > Wrote a motif software? People call it ugly.

      Then write it for Qt and it will work (and look+feel right) on Windows, Linux and MacOS X. Time to port ? Recompile.

      > Wrote your own widget? People still bitch.

      I presume you mean widget set. Of course they will bitch. That's a stupid thing to do.

      > Wrote it in GTK 1? Gotta upgrade to GTK 2 now.

      Most Linux dists use KDE as their desktop. Write your code
      for Qt. If you can't bring yourself to write C++, use the C, Objective C, C#, Java or Python bindings.

      > Nevermind all those bitching KDE users. Go ahead, write it
      > with QT3 and the fancy KDE3 integration. I'm still bitching;
      > I use windowmaker.

      Ah, another person don't know the difference between a desktop environment and a window manager. See the end of the startkde script - it tells you how to change which window manager is used. I wouldn't advise Window Maker though - it doesn't support the NET WM standard.

      > It's x86 only? Mac linux people whine.

      If it's x86 only, you need to port some of your asm or you need to correct some little bugs. Not hard.

      > It doesn't work with the latest glibc?

      If not, you have some problems with your coding practices. Either that, or you are writing some very low-level code, in which case you are quite used to dealing with such problems.

      > It's redhat only?

      Are we talking about Redhat using a version of GNU C++ which is incompatible with everyone else and not endorsed as a release by the GCC team ? Well, we have Redhat to thank (or not) for that. If I had been a Redhat user, I would have immediately become an ex-user.

      > WTF is this .rpm only thing?

      1. Most Linux distributions use RPM.

      2. RPMs can be used on all Linux distributions. Those that
      don't support it 'out of the box' are just being awkward.
      If you use such a distribution, it would be great if you'd
      ask the developers to support RPM out of the box, so those
      of us trying to get Linux onto people's computers don't
      have to face awkward questions about packaging.

      Or to put it another way, I don't care how technically superior some non-RPM brand of package management is. If you're putting out a Linux distribution that doesn't support RPM, you're holding back adoption of Linux by making it more difficult to package for.

      > Why aren't you taking advantage of XRENDER? I want my aa
      > fonts, dammit.

      If you're writing Qt code, you already are.

      > Where the ALSA version?

      Are we talking 'pro' audio apps here or just wanting to play
      music ? If you want to play music, use libao (see xiph.org) which gives you cross-platform support for sound output. It works well, too. As for 'pro' audio, well, ALSA is approximately ready to provide support, but not everyone is using ALSA 0.9x. Also, it's pretty bad to have to ask your users to patch their kernel just to provide low enough latency for pro audio, so we're a way off it being viable to port such apps.

      > It doesn't cut and paste right! (It never will. As long as
      > gnome and kde doesn't work perfectly with each other, it
      > ain't working on one of them.)

      They do. Gnome 2 + KDE 3 talk to each other just nicely and
      will continue to do. There's a standard in place now. Sorry we didn't get it right first time.

      Rik
  • Jeez, why does anybody pay attention to such an ignorant rant? Wishful thinking is not news. So maybe Linux users are willing to pay for their apps. Big deal. So are Mac users, and we all know many ports that platform has.
    • So maybe Linux users are willing to pay for their apps. Big deal. So are Mac users, and we all know many ports that platform has.

      I'm no rabid mac fan, although I use them occasionally, and despite what non-mac people may think the answer to your question is "a hell of a lot more than you think; certainly way more than for Linux". For example, the article in question was whining about the lack of a Dreamweaver port for Linux. There is, of course, a Macintosh version of Dreamweaver.

  • Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alienw ( 585907 ) <alienw,slashdot&gmail,com> on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:30PM (#4257819)
    Face the music: there are not enough users on Linux to justify having any developers work on a port of, say, Photoshop. It would take millions of dollars to port, and nobody will buy it. Given that Linux has maybe 0.5% of the desktop, and that maybe 1% of that will ever buy software that costs more than $30, I doubt the expense is justified.

    How about promoting more useful projects like Wine/Winelib [winehq.com] instead? A company with even marginal resources (Codeweavers) can do wonders with Wine, such as run MS Office and MSIE quite well. If some other company spent some more resources on improving it, it would be able to run 90% of the apps out there, including Photoshop and all the other stuff. It would also have a good chance of increasing that 0.5% market share to something more reasonable.

    If you still don't believe me, just consider what would happen if Adobe ported Photoshop to Linux. 10 or 15 people would actually buy it. It would get press coverage. And then, nothing would happen and no other company will bother porting anything. Kind of like what happened to Loki.
    • Face the music: there are not enough users on Linux to justify having any developers work on a port of, say, Photoshop. It would take millions of dollars to port, and nobody will buy it. Given that Linux has maybe 0.5% of the desktop, and that maybe 1% of that will ever buy software that costs more than $30, I doubt the expense is justified.
      >>>>>>>>>>
      Actually, given the number of development houses that are switching their workstation's to Linux, stuff like Photoshop is what has a market on Linux. What really won't sell on Linux is home user stuff, like Mavis Beacon's Typing Tutor.

    • Re:Yeah right (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Shippy ( 123643 )

      If you still don't believe me, just consider what would happen if Adobe ported Photoshop to Linux. 10 or 15 people would actually buy it. It would get press coverage. And then, nothing would happen and no other company will bother porting anything. Kind of like what happened to Loki.

      No, I don't think this is like Loki. The problem with Loki is that they would release their games a year or so after the game was released originally. By that time, everyone who _really_ wanted the game went ahead and bought the Windows version. So, you had to pay $30 for a game that was already old.

      I have two Loki games that run better than the Windows versions did, but I bought them when they were marked down to $10 because I already owned the Windows versions and didn't want to spend even more money on a game that I'll hardly get to play. If a publisher releases a game for all platforms right off the bat, then the people who want to run Mac, Linux, or Windows can get whichever version they wish.

      Neverwinter Nights is also a great idea. Sure, they don't have the Linux version done yet, but when they finish it, all of those people who purchased the Windows version will be able to download and run the Linux version. Hopefully it will run well. Loki did a great job on their ports. The key is either the original publisher writing cross-platform code or another publisher making a deal with the original to co-develop and release at the same time.

      If Photoshop came out for Linux or even M$ Office, I would consider purchasing them both. I personally don't find the GIMP very intuitive to use and I don't think the documentation is all that great (although I really like script-fu). As for Office, people are pushing OpenOffice, but I don't think it's quite up to the caliber of M$ Office. I would really love for them to be able to do with OpenOffice that Mozilla is able to do with respect to IE. Mozilla kicks the socks off of IE! Also, I really am against giving Micro$oft any of my money.

      I have no problem with paying for good software for Linux. If I had to purchase Mozilla, I would have happily sent in $30 for a license. It's just that good.

  • There's one (Score:3, Informative)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:33PM (#4257827) Homepage Journal
    error in that logic. People who use linux are too cheap to buy an operating system, they aren't going to pay for software. They will always seek out the free/open source alternative. Star Office now costs money, so a lot of people switch to Open Office. There is a group of wealthy/affluent/well off linux users who would pay for it. But how many people bought quake 3 for linux? I bet there are more people running quake 3 with wine than bought the linux version. And both version are the same game.

    Linux users are a unique market in that they are a group of people who disliked the mainstream product, and rather than buy a different one, they made their own, and they share it with the world at no cost. No matter what you try to sell them, someone isn't going to like it and will make their own and share it. There is only one way to break into this market. Say a company like Adobe gives away illustrator/photoshop for free for linux. And charges for the windows version. For home users only (not businesses). And let's say these version were just as good if not better than the windows/mac versions. I guarantee a decrease in use of the gimp over a period of months. The gimp is good, just photoshop is better, its the best in fact.
    The next step is to wait until people switch away from windows just to use the free and maybe better version of photoshop in linux. At this point release a new version with lots and lots of new features and upgrades, and charge 50$ for it. Not 500$. No home users will ever pay 500$ for software, they will just pirate it.
    Now you have people at home using linux and and photoshop and adobe making money off of them. The same people will become used to linux/photohsop at home they will switch away from windows at work. Now all the companies will switch to linux/photoshop (even though photoshop for a busniness costs 500$) because its a better version of a program that is important to their business, and their employees are more proficient with the linux version. Even at 500$ photoshop/linux is cheaper than photoshop/windows.

    Photoshop is just an example. And this is just one possible scenario. But I see it as a very easy way to get more linux users and better software for linux. As well as bringing much needed revenue into the open source community.
    • There's an error in YOUR logic. Windows is installed on nearly all PCs. Installing Linux will *save no money at all*. "people who use linux are too cheap to buy an operating system" is flawed logic, because Windows is already installed in the first place!
    • Nope. Not every Linux user is too cheap to buy software. Lot's of people buy the OS itself in nice little shrinkwrapped boxes. Before I got broadband access a few months ago I'd purchased box sets of, I suspect, every RedHat version since 5.2, a number of SuSe versions, ditto Slack and Mandrake. I've also purchased a few commercial Linux apps, all of which fell into an immediate state of disuse -- they weren't good enough.

      The problem with selling software into the Linux market, expecially desktop software, is the same problem that has afflicted the Unix market for more than a quarter of a century: There is no market. I.e., a typical Unix/Linux installation already has just about everything that a savvy Unix/Linux user wants in the way of software. Remember, this is the crowd that considers the editor space fully occupied by vi and emacs, and defines word processing as post-processing the code you added to your ASCII text.

      If a company conjures up an honestly innovative idea for a piece of desktop software -- not a port, not an office suite -- that is worth taking the risk of paying people to develop it, they'd be foolish not to go after the largest market.
    • People who use linux are too cheap to buy an operating system, they aren't going to pay for software.

      Bullshit. You're clearly begging the question. Most Linux users I know spend a lot of money on their computers, software, books, and other things. Most people I know who use Linux do so because its the best tool for the job.

      But how many people bought quake 3 for linux?

      29,000, IIRC. Do some research. At a time when NVidia didn't have any Linux drivers, that's a good number.

      Linux users are a unique market in that they are a group of people who disliked the mainstream product, and rather than buy a different one, they made their own, and they share it with the world at no cost.

      I didn't make my own. I just used whatever was best for the job. In my case, that happened to be Linux.

      No matter what you try to sell them, someone isn't going to like it and will make their own and share it.

      That might be true, but will their own be any good? If not, I'll gladly pay for something better if its worth it.

      In the last year, I've spent the following on Linux related products. In each case their were no cost alternatives, but I picked the best tool for the job.

      • Red Hat Certified Engineer Training
      • Codeweavers Crossover Plugin
      • Codeweavers Crossover Office
      • Wolfenstein 3D
      • WineX
      • Jedi Knight II to play under Winex.
      • Quake 3 Team Arena
      • vast quantities of books and Linux publications
      • As soon as UT2003 retail comes out, a copy of that too.
      • I might also buy Opera 7. Again, if its better.


      I would much rather pay Apple for the pleasure of running Quicktime under Linux than pay Codeweavers for the ability to run a non-native version

  • Bunk. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xenoweeno ( 246136 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:34PM (#4257830)

    The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software.



    Users, including me, will pay for good software up to and no further than the point when equivalent, if not better, freeware/open source/[insert other it's-free license here] software comes along.


    • D*mn straight. Like Linux, and Apache, and ... erm... yeah, those others that probably exist.
    • >>The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software.Users, including me, will pay for good software up to and no further than the point when equivalent, if not better, freeware/open source/[insert other it's-free license here] software comes along.I need that runs under Linux.

  • Not for me, thanks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AirLace ( 86148 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:37PM (#4257844)
    I'm a Linux user, and I wouldn't consider myself a cheapskate. However, while I spend a considerable fraction of my annual income on new computers, hardware and geek toys, the total amount I spend on stand-alone software is £0.00.

    This isn't because I'm 'cheap'. Nor is it the case that I pirate software instead of buying it. The fact is, I don't need to buy software. Some packages, like virus scanners and Windows performance enhancers are obsolete on Linux anyway, while other programs like Microsoft Word have sufficiently powerful and free couterparts (I use TeX myself, but others say great things about OpenOffice).

    At the end of the day, the only other killer app for my computer is Web browsing and e-mail, with which Mozilla and Evolution cope gracefully.

    If other Linux users have a similar computing environment to mine, then I would go so far as to say that porting proprietary software to Linux, whether full-featured or cut-down, is redundant. This may not be what the new generation of younger (and often naive) Linux 'advocates' want to hear, but the truth is that Linux is doing just fine without proprietary consumer software. If you are trying to convince the software firms that there could be a flourishing market for their tools on Linux, you are probably not telling them the entire truth.

    • Perspective (Score:2, Insightful)

      by buchanmilne ( 258619 )
      As with many things in life, your opinion will depend greatly on your perpsective.

      To my knowledge (which may be biased living in a so-called third-world country where software is really expensive), the biggest customer of commercial software is big business.

      Granted, quite soon open-source solutions will extend from the file/print/web/mail server to the desktop, and include the basics the average administrative user needs (email, documents, spreadsheets, simple databases).

      But, currently there are no real solutions for the business-critical software that actually pays the bills (unless you do web design or server hosting, which may not pay the bills either).

      Coming from a mechanical engineering background, the software that we spend the real money on (one license can often pay the entire balance of all the other non-technical software) are things like 3d associative Computer Aided Design Software [ptc.com], software for Finite Element Analysis [msc.com], Computational [ricardo.com] Fluid [aeat.com] Dynamics [cd-adapco.com].

      I imagine other high-tech industries will also have software they depend on, for which there is currently absolutely no viable open-source solution.

      Fortunately, a lot of this software does already run on free OSs (notably all the CFD software I listed, and also most of MSCs structural analysis software), and Pro/E will apparently be coming soon. But, of course, there were not ports from windows, rather ports from commercial Unix (in many cases, so were the windows versions).

      The problem for us is that we can't migrate until all the tools one person will use are available, since work often requires interaction between at least two pieces of software. But, presently Pro/E is the biggest piece missing, and we hope that this will be addressed by the end of the year.

      Then, we only need to replace the stuff the use, but I think that's going to require a different kind of solution, unless it's easy to port VB on MSSQL software to linux. [qmuzik.com]

      Please, don't do other linux (and OSS) users a disservice just by stating that all your home computing needs are catered for by current OSS software, thus there is no need for proprietary commercial software.

      Having more linux users around is a good thing, since that will mean that hardware vendors and website designers will have to take notice, and hopefully the number of HTML emails will drop ;-).

      The quickest way to do that, is to ensure that businesses can migrate easily to linux/OSS without losing the functionality they currently have, at which point they will start to see the additional advantages they hadn't considered.

  • Logical fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Istealmymusic ( 573079 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @03:37PM (#4257845) Homepage Journal
    Only Linux users will buy it. I'm tired of #include linux/network.h, we need full, cross-platform Unix games. Not Linux-only.
  • To paraphrase Tom Hanks as ``Forrest Gump'', "Buzzword is as buzzword does".

    "At the same time, Linux, one of the flagship products of the open source/free software movement, is such a buzzword that all of these companies - and many others - want to somehow associate themselves with the community."

    Yes. For marketing purposes. Not to actually *do* anything productive. And it's about time the Linux people wised up to this fact.

    It's like the staunch Democrat, whi won't pass up an opportunity to get his picture taken with the President of the United States, even though that president is a Republican. Or the staunch Republican, who gets his picture taken with Teddy Kennedy, to put on his Christmas cards.

    Do these people vote the way that the pictures, now on their desks, would imply that they'll be voting? No.

    The entire point of endorsing something that's a darling of the trade press is to get trade press as a result of the reflected glory, that would be more expensive to buy elsewhere, under other circumstances.

    -- Terry
  • The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software.

    Unless they are Linux users. I know so many people that would rather download RH for free (or buy the CD for $4 and get it shipped) then pay for it. The entire mentality is different. I'd rather this argument be made for OSX.
  • As a BSD user, what really annoys me is the *lack* of support for non-Linux systems. A LOT of software is so simple that building it for *BSD should be trivial. Take the Flash plugin for example... No way would that be difficult to port for BSD.

    Nearly all this software runs fine with the Linux emulation... But you know what? A lot of times the Linux binaries/libraries themselves are unstable, plus it takes up extra space.

    On many fronts, BSD and Linux are similar. If you stay away from include/linux and the asinine /proc system you should be OK.

    End rant. :)

  • The author makes some interesting (though debatable, and sometimes flat-out wrong) points, yet while he declares that "I'm here to tell the commercial software companies: 'If you port it, we will pay'," implying that this is targeted towards commercial software companies, the article is written as a rant (as the Slashdot article notes), which is definitely the wrong way to get the attention of commercial software houses. The author needs to make up his mind. What is the goal here? Is it to rant and rave about the lack of quality commercial software for Linux? If so, then don't try to represent the rant as a plea to ISVs to properly port their software. Is it a plea to these ISVs for proper and consistent support of Linux? In that case, the author needs to lose all the inflammatory points (the not-so-subtle insinuations that you're a moron if you use Windows, the incorrect information on the stability and performance of current versions of Windows, and so on). At least he didn't stoop to the level of slashbots and use such derogatory terms as "Windoze", "Winblows", "Microsuck", and the like. Had he used one of those, his credibility would've been completely shot, rather than just undermined and on shakey ground.


    What this author really needs to do, if he cares about influencing ISVs to seriously consider the Linux market segment is do (or commission from a trusted third-party) a study on the purchasing habits of primary Linux users. It's all well and good to assert that people you know are willing to pay for software, but it's anything but concrete. I can make the assertion that Linux users I know are not willing to pay for software and it would be just as valid.


    Author, make up your mind! Are you preaching to the choir, or are you trying to get your points heard? The two are different, and what flies with one generally won't fly with the other.

  • The argument being made that users aren't cheap skates, they will pay for good software.

    Whether or not MOST users are cheap skates is obviously debatable. It seems clear, for instance, that very many - if not most - copies of MS Word are not paid for.

    But I really wonder how one can possibly try to make an argument that there is much of paying market for 'good' Linux software, in particular, when Linux and all the licenses underlying it has from the start been about being 'Free'.

    I'm sure there are a more than a few people here who have paid for Linux software. But can there really be enough willing-to-pay users out there to support the often immense costs of porting software to Linux, when so few companies were willing to shoulder the risk of porting Windows software to the Mac at the Mac's market-share zenith ? Especially when you consider the Free Software manifesto that underlies Linux culture ?
  • I don't want commercial software on Linux and I don't want to pay for commercial software on Linux. I'd rather use free software even if it's not quite as good as a commercial equivalent. In many cases free software is better anyway.

    Commercial software is an antithesis to the primary advantage of the Linux platform: openness. If you try to make Linux into just another delivery vehicle for commercial software you will fail because Microsoft and Apple are far better at creating operating systems for that purpose. Loki already bit it and many other vendor attempts to release commercial software on Linux have failed.

    Linux is a niche market with a lot of users that will not pay for commercial software because the software is not worth the cost (monetary or freedom) to them.

    Run Windoze if you want to pay money for software you can't modify. I use Windoze to run games, for example.

    -Kevin

  • You don't see that much commercial software for Linux because Linux has many of the mainstream software categories reasonably well covered with free software. No, you don't exactly get MS Office or Adobe Photoshop, but you get applications that are functionally pretty close. It's primarily niche and specialty software for which it makes sense to make a Linux port--and that software is being ported--software like Matlab, design software, embedded tools, etc.
  • Linux lacks serious regognition as a professional Plattform in large areas. That's a fact.
    For example, with the Macromedia Dreamteam ported to MacOS X it's a shame they haven't started talking about Linux yet.
    But there's another problem:
    With the dotbomb just behind us, the market of software for Computer professionals is quite thin and I presume that lots of proprietary software isn't so much of a license to print money anymore. They're are 2 way's the future could go:
    1. Eventually the software companies catch on and come out with software for Linux, or
    2. OSS catches up more and more even in the Multimedia field and we've got nothing to worry about.
    I actually would kinda like number 1 to happen early and the vendors getting the curve to change to a more service orientated culture. There is a lot of Software out there that would 'deserve' a solid plattform like Linux.

    And, please, spare me the "Gimp is the OSS Photoshop alternative' crap. You don't no shit about what you're talking about.
  • Actually, Adobe's Acrobat is quite full-featured in the Linux version. It supports CoolType and everything.

  • I've said it before... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rongage ( 237813 )

    I've said this numerous times before, and I'll continue to say it until someone at AutoDesk and/or Intuit listen up and actually pay attention...

    When AutoCAD and QuickBooks have Linux versions available, I will gladly and immediately purchase them. Yes, they must be equal to or better than their Windows counterparts (well, duhhhh).

    Does anyone from AutoDesk or Intuit even read these pages???

  • The easier it is to warez something, the more people will warez it. If you open source a mass distributed piece of software it will be garanteed to be compiled by someone and be easy to get without paying. I know that I haven't paid a cent for any linux related software, and I never will pay for it, regardless of how great the software will be.

    People rather upgrade their computers, buy something for their girlfriend (or if they are a girlfriend themselves, they probably will buy something for themselves;) j/k), see a movie, buy a DVD player, anything but pay for software.

    Anyone who comes up with a good way to sell software, I salute you, but I think that something extraordinary needs to take place before people will fork(money); for software. Most of us grew up beliving "it isn't really stealing" and a lot of people still hold those values. That is what has to change, not versions of software for linux. It is no easier to develop large pieces of software for linux than any other platform.
  • Somehow I don't see the Holy Grail for Linux as some company porting an existing product. The Real Holy Grail for Linux will be developed for Linux and in Linux. Some say it's slready here and it's called Apache. I still think the killer client app is waiting to happen. I just don't know what it is. Considering the way the industry is going, it way be somthing to attract customers scared of DRM and wanting to share files securely.
  • 200+ comments with the basic of subject of:
    Why MS sucks and Linux Rulez"
    or
    "Why Linux rulez and MS sucks"
    or
    "I have a Mac, so screw them all"
    or
    "Who really cares, use what's best for what you need" - me

    I have Excellent Karma, so what the hell.

  • ^H^H^H (Score:2, Funny)

    by Proc6 ( 518858 )
    The ^H^H^H thing was funny^H^H^H^H^H kind of funny, the first 10^H^H 2 times someone did it. Now it's getting really old.
  • Shit guys. They were saying the same thing about OS/2 for years before it finally died enough for me to move on. Of course, the difference here is that there isn't an IBM to kill Linux, so we can keep going as long as we like. But let's quit whining about the big commercial companies not supporting our little movement. That don't give a damn about us, and frankly and could care any less than that for them.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be is to program.

Close