Having first looked at Linux a long time ago (Mandrake 5/6 (?)) and gave up because there were too many things that still required Windows, and then started using OpenSuse for about a year now (10.3->11.0->Stopped there) and still find that there are a few things that I need windows for (iTunes (now in Virtualbox), games (dual boot). Things have progressed a long way but Linux still hasn’t become main stream (netbooks might take it there).
I think that the problem is Open source. It appears that if you like Open source (who doesn’t like all that free stuff?), you are pushed into being all Open source. However, where’s the money in that? Services I understand, but where’s the money?
Microsoft are thinking about pay-to-use computing because perhaps there’s more money in it than selling software normally. Where’s the money for all those businesses that want to push Linux?
I think, and this really is the nub of the post, that the Open source Community should adopt a policy of encouraging non-free software on the Open source platform (!). For example, I actually spent 20€ on Nero for Linux. I have used Nero for years on Windows, and wanted it again on Linux. Its a shame that the Windows version of Nero encompasses so much more, some of which I would like, but don’t want to have to have windows to have it.
Open source Linux distro’s would have the opportunity of becoming the defacto computing platform if the world of business was making money off the back of it.
Best Regards to all, if my idea is trite or pointless please tell me, I have puzzled over how OSS can ever succeed for a long time.
Businesses make money off customization, support etc. Ask Novell, IBM, Sun and loads of others. And I just bought the “OpenSUSE 11.0 Bible” (not particularly recommended) thereby making income for the writers, the publisher and Amazon.
The point I was trying to make it that Open source often excludes “not-free” and that I think limits its adoption. The more software out there for Linux the better.
I agree, sometimes we need proprietary software, especially hardware drivers to get the most out of our hardware.
And there are many ways to earn good money with open source, those denying it are doing it the wrong way.
Some examples are: sell your software in binary form, offer paid support, offer commercial licensing next to open source, etc.
desmondgc wrote:
> Sigh… So naive. Please read
> <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html>.
>
> …and other essays on <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html>.
>
>
That is one way of looking at it. Personally, I think it is a good
option but as with anything, choice is the best. Choice to make your
software proprietary, choice to sell it, choice not to use the GPL.
Without these different choices competition would be much more stagnant
and technological advances would be much slower.
Just a fly by… i use proprietary software Like Photoshop and Dreamweaver but when
it comes to cd burning software there is nothing that compares to K3B
Dude, that’s a lame answer. There’s nothing naive in questioning even your own positions. I think it’s important to actually understand the arguments in favor and against of both open source and proprietary software. The critique to non-proprietary software is rooted in a deep economic understanding of how things work… so don’t be naive and dismiss it just because you don’t agree.
After actually reading the whole thing, I think Stallman does a good job laying out the basics of why software should be free, but there is also some basic stuff he doesn’t really answer, for example exactly what the nub of the first post was: how to encourage high levels of engagement of the programming community, similar to the ones that proprietary software has.
Free software goes slower. Why? Because many developers have to earn wages doing other stuff (If anyone has a different opinion about this I’ll be happy to hear it.)
So, let me play devil’s advocate here: doesn’t proprietary software have any benefits? Is it all evil?
My point is: precisely because we care so much about free software we have to understand exactly how it works and how it’ll compete, and eventually surpass.
Dude, that’s a lame answer. There’s nothing naive in questioning even your own positions. I think it’s important to actually understand the arguments in favor and against of both open source and proprietary software. The critique to non-proprietary software is rooted in a deep economic understanding of how things work… so don’t be naive and dismiss it just because you don’t agree.
After actually reading the whole thing, I think Stallman does a good job laying out the basics of why software should be free, but there is also some basic stuff he doesn’t really answer, for example exactly what the nub of the first post was: how to encourage high levels of engagement of the programming community, similar to the ones that proprietary software has.
Free software goes slower. Why? Because many developers have to earn wages doing other stuff
So, let me play devil’s advocate here: doesn’t proprietary software have any benefits? Is it all evil?
My point is: precisely because we care so much about free software we have to understand exactly how it works and how it’ll compete, and eventually surpass.
I’ll be happy to hear other opinions about any of this…
A lot of software that runs on Linux is non-open source.
Shocked? You shouldn’t be. Where are those “evil” software that are non-open source, you ask.
Have a look around the Internet. That web site running some PHP shopping cart, is it open source? I don’t think Amazon has open sourced their online store have they?
That scientific simulation running on Linux super computers, is it open source? Probably not, but not because the scientists are evil people who want to hide knowledge. More likely parts of it are code that won’t be of any use to others, or too specialised. But they may share reusable libraries in their communities.
There is no reason why you cannot write closed source to run on Linux, except whether you get customers. If Adobe doesn’t sell CS3 for Linux, it’s because they have decided, rightly or wrongly, that it would not be worth their while.
The stuff I do for my employer is closed source. They paid for the work and they have a right to keep it for use by themselves. And it’s unlikely to be of use to others without hacking it totally out of shape. But they are not adverse to releasing some generic parts from time to time.
It’s not all black and white. There is a case for both kinds of source.
Please let me see if I understand the question/comment correctly.
The rub is the lack of proprietary/paid software available for the Linux platform because of the perceived notion that there is nothing in it for them?
One part holding companies back from porting their applications to Linux is the lack of market share so their return on the investment outlook is dim. Netbooks help but that addresses a segment of the market already saturated.
Another part is due to companies having to fight any available FOSS which comes bundled into most distro repositories (kinda like IE bundled in Windows?).
Most Linux users will use what is available and free. Windows and Apple users, on the other hand, are not as fully devoted to FOSS or even think about Open Source alternatives so they are willing to shell out the money for applications they view as being “superior” despite most of the popular FOSS titles are available for Windows (dunno about Mac) as well; Firefox, Gimp, Inkscape, Blender, Pidgin, Eclipse, OpenOffice.org, Nvu/Komposer, Mono (not Monodevelop), Scribus and more.
In many cases, proprietary software is better than the FOSS equivalent. Photoshop is still better than Gimp, MS Office is arguably better than OpenOffice or KOffice, Dreamweaver is better than Nvu/Komposer. Also there are plenty of proprietary software that does not have competition in the FOSS market (Acrobat Pro, Flash, Visual Studio for .NET development)
It’s a bit of a “chicken and egg”.
I think the other part of your original post relates to somehow promoting proprietary or paid software on the Linux platform so as to develop a market for companies to make money developing for Linux (which in turn helps promote Linux and remove some barriers in Linux adoption).
That’s difficult.
It brings up interesting questions of what would happen if Microsoft released a Linux version of Office (equivalent to Mac’s? Better?) and Adobe release Photoshop/Illustrator/Acrobat and Flash for Linux and Apple release iTunes! Would that be enough?
Now, in the meantime forces are afoot for breaking down this barrier, and that’s called Cloud Computing. As this moves forward and leaves the desktop behind then Linux’s abilities will shine between being Free($ in most cases) and being FOSS can be better entwined with the Cloud world for seamless integration!
