Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th May 2009 19:06 UTC
Linux We all know them. We all hate them. They are generally overdone, completely biased, or so vague they border on the edge of pointlessness (or toppled over said edge). Yes, I'm talking about those "Is Linux ready for the desktop" articles. Still, this one is different.
Thread beginning with comment 364070
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by pcunite
by pcunite on Mon 18th May 2009 19:24 UTC
pcunite
Member since:
2008-08-26

This article is very accurate from a developer's point of view (which I am one).

I am not going to waste my time porting my software to Linux when not only are the user's hostile to me feeding my children (charging for it) but when also the binary compatibility and library landscape is so inconsistent.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by pcunite
by BigDaddy on Mon 18th May 2009 19:58 in reply to "Comment by pcunite"
BigDaddy Member since:
2006-08-10

There is nothing wrong with selling software on Linux. Is this really a hostile point with users?

If your software does something that I couldn't get from a free app, why wouldn't I buy it? (assuming I needed it).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by pcunite
by pcunite on Mon 18th May 2009 20:03 in reply to "RE: Comment by pcunite"
pcunite Member since:
2008-08-26

There is nothing wrong with selling software on Linux. Is this really a hostile point with users? If your software does something that I couldn't get from a free app, why wouldn't I buy it? (assuming I needed it).


The feelings I get from others in the Linux community is that because so much of the base (the kernel, libraries, some GUI kits) are free that any attempt by me to charge for an application (which has fewer man hours than the above list) is somehow morally wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by pcunite
by om_rebel on Tue 19th May 2009 17:52 in reply to "RE: Comment by pcunite"
om_rebel Member since:
2009-04-09

There is nothing wrong with selling software on Linux. Is this really a hostile point with users?

If your software does something that I couldn't get from a free app, why wouldn't I buy it? (assuming I needed it).


Exactly. I purchased MoneyDance because I liked it better than any of the alternatives. Those same people who would refuse to purchase software for Linux are probably the same that do no purchase software for Windows either.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by pcunite
by Laurence on Mon 18th May 2009 20:12 in reply to "Comment by pcunite"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


I am not going to waste my time porting my software to Linux when not only are the user's hostile to me feeding my children (charging for it)


I don't think that's entirely fair.
Windows is plagued with pirated software and freeloaders.
Where as OSS charges for support rather the software - so at least you're controlling your product.

Now I'm not saying OSS is better than proprietary. Just that many a company has successfully made a business out of free software - so it can be done.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by pcunite
by yorthen on Mon 18th May 2009 20:54 in reply to "RE: Comment by pcunite"
yorthen Member since:
2005-07-06

If companies manages to earn money by offering support instead of by charging for the software it is because the software is so complex that support is required. Most applications does not require more support (if any) than a help-file or a quick question on a forum can give. In other words for the majority of software it is not a viable business model.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by pcunite
by Priest on Tue 19th May 2009 05:12 in reply to "RE: Comment by pcunite"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

At the same time thought it is a huge pain to build custom packages for the different versions of different distros and that is before you account for people that have upgraded/downgraded some of the libraries you depend on to non-default versions for the OS.

It is a crazy amount of work so it is often better just to open source your application and let the distro well, distribute it in binary form.

Like it or not, this is the Linux distribution model and it does not work nearly as well for commercial software.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by pcunite
by ggeldenhuys on Mon 18th May 2009 22:55 in reply to "Comment by pcunite"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

This article is very accurate from a developer's point of view (which I am one).

As a developer by trade myself, writing commercial and open source software for Linux and Windows platforms...also as a Linux user, that article is far from accurate.

Many of the things mentioned there is a simple point and click action to solve. I'm using Ubuntu 8.04.2 and I've tested Ubuntu 9.04 which makes many things even easier.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by pcunite
by steviant on Wed 20th May 2009 05:07 in reply to "RE: Comment by pcunite"
steviant Member since:
2006-01-11

I hate to agree with the whiner, but if it's so easy to fix those things, why are they left broken or in a stupid configuration in the first place?

It does seem like in many cases Linux distributors are like bakers who aren't really able to guarantee the right taste because they don't control the raw ingredients in the recipe.

I guess it's an unfortunate side effect of a decentralized development model, but it seems that Linux distributors are vulnerable to being taken for a ride by misguided developers, where someone like Microsoft or Apple has the ability to force their developers to conform to a lofty vision or strict usability guidelines. (Not that they do always)

Edited 2009-05-20 05:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by pcunite
by kaiwai on Tue 19th May 2009 12:40 in reply to "Comment by pcunite"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

This article is very accurate from a developer's point of view (which I am one).

I am not going to waste my time porting my software to Linux when not only are the user's hostile to me feeding my children (charging for it) but when also the binary compatibility and library landscape is so inconsistent.


I don't think there is a hostile atmosphere outside the hardcore "it must be all free" zealots. I think the biggest problem is exactly what you put your finger on - the lack of compatibility not only between versions but also compilers (C++ the magical moving target) and binary compatibility (library A compiled by foobah 1.0, the same library is compiled by foobah 2.0 - its a toss up whether it'll work reliably on the later). The problems I faced were more distribution compatibility related more than anything else - I guess the only saviour would maybe Ubuntu becoming pretty much the defacto standard for Linux desktops to which vendors can orientate their middleware around.

Reply Parent Score: 2