Where’s the shareware?
Today is the first day of MacHeist 2, an event where you can get 10 shareware OS X applications for $49USD (all the apps regularly priced at $343.75USD). That’s a pretty spanking good deal. This year’s heist looks pretty good… last year’s was better, but this year isn’t bad by any stretch of the imagination.
So that got me thinking about shareware. There are essentially three schools of software: freeware, shareware, and commercial. For the mac user, there’s plenty of all three, same for the windows user. It seems like, by and large, the Linux crowd is stuck with two: freeware (ala open source) and commercial.
Being no stranger to shareware, I was struck today as to why there is very little shareware for Linux. We have an insane amount of “freeware” via open source software. There’s also plenty of commercial software… stuff like Oracle, VMware, and so forth come immediately to mind. However, it seems to me like the commercial stuff is marketed directly to the enterprise sector, and the the freeware stuff is for everyone (everyone else?).
This appeals to mid- and large-sized business who want the reassurance of support and longevity; I get why commercial software exists. It will always exist, whether you dream of a utopian all-open-source-society or not. Open source (aka freeware) appeals to everyone. When you think of the support options for open source, it’s by and large community-based or DIY (do-it-yourself). I can install a web application written in PHP and not worry if the developer takes off because I have the source (and the skills) to update and enhance it as I see fit. As a result, I *like* open source. But I’m the average user your typical Linux distribution is trying to target.
The lack of shareware is strange. When I look at the mac, knowing that a lot of the “guts” are open source applications, I see that right out of the box I get the commercial (the GUI interface and the apps Apple has written) and the open source (apache, PHP, perl, bash, etc. right there where I want it). However, were I a newcomer to the mac, would I immediately be looking for the open source stuff? The commercial stuff? The average person would be looking for the shareware and would wander over to places like MacUpdate or VersionTracker.
Yet as a newcomer to Linux, there is nothing like that for me. There are probably, what, less than one hundred shareware applications for Linux? Maybe two hundred? Quite possibly a lot less than that.
When you think about a mac, and the software you use on it, you’re thinking about some high quality applications. Yet most of those are shareware. Now, I’m not saying Linux is lacking in high quality applications — there is some damn fine open source stuff out there. But, coming from a windows or mac background, I dare say most of that isn’t desktop applications. The really solid stuff is the server-related stuff (samba, apache, perl, etc.). Some really good desktop applications exist, sure… Firefox and Thunderbird are nothing to shake your head at, and KDE and GNOME are good desktop interfaces. But what if I wanted a good RSS reader? Or a file manager? Or something like a really slick CSS editor? On Linux, I’m stuck with the open source; on a mac or windows, if the open source stuff available doesn’t cut it, I have options (shareware and commercial). This makes me think back to the “choice is good” mantra that comes with distributions shipping a dozen different text editors. If there is a half-dozen so-so RSS readers, and I happen to dislike or have issues with all of them, where then is my choice? Do I even have the option to look for something that costs a few dollars, where the developer has more than just “warm fuzzies” as motivation? (This motivation, BTW, makes some insane things happen… money is one of the best motivators a person can get). If we don’t have that middle-tier of application development (shareware), do we *really* have all the choice we *could* have?
I wonder if the zealotry behind “everything open source” is coming to bite us in the arse and scare off shareware developers. After all, it used to be that if you ran Linux, the perception was “free free free!”. Everything must be free. For someone to develop a quality piece of software and then ask for money, or make it available and cripple it until it was registered, I’m sure they’d be attacked by a virtual mob ready to kick them in the face. Why? Because this is open source, dammit! Your greedy mentality isn’t wanted here! Yeah, I’d yell some more, but I have to call the Oracle support staff regarding a problem with our Oracle database we were alerted to. Down with the greedy shareware authors! If you’re going to write something, make it open source! Yes? Hello? Oracle?
I’m well aware that for the last couple of years advocates have been proclaiming that *this* year would be the year of the Linux desktop. And every year it isn’t. Every year the desktops do amazing things, don’t get me wrong, so one has to wonder where the short end of the stick lies. Is it the kernel and hardware support? Lack of popular games? Not enough polish on the desktop interface? We’ve all heard the varied excuses as to why it wasn’t the time, or what needs weren’t met, etc. Sure, some of it is definitely true, but some of it is bunk. Not enough desktop polish? GNOME has a great interface… there’s a lot of polish there. It works and works well (I’m not a big fan of KDE, but I suspect it’s in the same camp).
I’m seriously wondering if all the “free free free!” foaming at the mouth has driven off a developer community that is moderately or even purely motivated by profit, but don’t have the resources to be “commercial software developers”. A lot of this really great mac software is developed by single individuals or small teams and they produce some high class stuff. And the funny thing… OS X is not very old, in the grand scheme of things. Linux has been around longer than OS X has. Yes, Apple’s control over the interface and hardware, the applications Apple has written, aggressive advertising, etc. have definitely helped propel OS X along to the point that it’s making more of a dent now in Windows sales than it ever has in the past. But there is still fundamental cost associated with it that Linux users can avoid. Having said that, it’s the developer community that drives Apple, and Apple makes sure (for the most part) to seriously acknowledge and foster that community. Without all of those third-party shareware applications, the mac isn’t much to look at.
We have a great open source development community around us. But can Linux really take on Apple and Microsoft with just a two-tiered development community? When the two operating systems that are the biggest competition both have large three-tiered development communities? Have we so focused on one camp to the almost complete exclusion of another that it can never come back? If shareware developers started developing shareware for Linux, would people even buy it? Or would the mantra of “free free free!” drive them, and their software, away?
I don’t know. I’m not a marketing guy. But it’s something to consider. Especially in light of events like MacHeist where in less than 24hrs, as of this moment, there have been 2648 bundles sold. This, and the fact that there is so much shareware available for the mac, tell me that shareware as a concept is extremely viable. I couldn’t even begin to count how much I’ve spent on shareware applications for DOS, OS/2, Windows, and more recently OS X. For 15+ years now I’ve been buying shareware. Sure, not all shareware is great (or even good — the motivation of money does not a good developer make), but the nice thing with it is you can try before you buy. If it doesn’t do it for you, don’t buy it. I’ve spent some hard-earned dollars on some fantastic software developed by very small companies and individuals, and I don’t see myself stopping. I’ve bought commercial software, but where a shareware solution existed that did as much, or close to as much, as a commercial offering, I’ve usually gone for the shareware stuff.
For Linux, I can count what I’ve paid for (other than operating systems (yes, I’ve bought boxed copies of Mandriva, SUSE, Yellowdog, etc.)) on one hand. I’ve bought Zend Studio, and I’ve bought VMware. Oh, and Komodo. All of those were commercial software, however.
This is just food for thought. I’m musing here, but I wonder if our two-tiered development community is what’s making Linux trip on it’s own feet when the Mac has a three-tiered development community and increases market share every year and Windows has the same three-tiered community and, while it’s market share may be (arguably) slightly on the decline, surely it isn’t enough for anyone to cheer over.
So… does Linux need shareware to compete? And if does, will the open source purists and zealots even permit that middle-tier development community to survive, much less thrive?
I guess at this point I need to add the obligatory “flame on!”, right? =)
Rufus
I’ve noticed the same absence, so I second your point, kinda.
But Linux Desktop (ie, on PC’s bought by or for John Doe users) has, or suffers from, three other differences: It has no big brother smarmy corporate handholding and huge Trust ME PR presence; and if you blow a deadline because of a software problem on Linux, it’s YOUR FAULT while if you blow a deadline w/MS software why, you were using the universally accepted standard and can’t be held accountable; and lastly, the western world worships money and if you didn’t get it with money, it’s not real world and can’t be relied upon. Ones the comforting illusion that you can boast about being on the winning (or at least the crowded) side, and the other is a serious CYA issue; and the last is just religion.
Now you can make a good case that Windows and its apps has not so very _effective_ support, but the Perception is that the buyer (or leasee by now?) has this huge eternally powerful entity that they can scream at, complain about, point to as the Reason their machine is fubar – and everybody will not their heads in sympathy and ACCEPT THAT AS A PERFECTLY GOOD EXCUSE. You’re in the center of the herd and the buzz is stroking you all over. With Linux, you don’t have that heavily accented support desk patiently talking you through the same 79 step process over and over and reaching the same dead end – politely, uselessly and reassuringly. Most people don’t really care about competence or effectiveness (the A-hole boss does, but not real people) they just want a comfortable non-threatening experience where they can piss on some polite foreigner if they need to and rail against Big Brother then go out and have lunch while the new PC is delivered. MS and all big commodity advertisers know that you need to stroke the aphids and they’ll stay put and fork over; somehow I don’t see many Linux techs spooning out that kind of sacharine (sp?). And religions don’t change or die quickly (less than 100 yrs) w/out a prophet or something and money’s prophet needs to have graduated from Harvard. (well, I’d grant that if Warren Buffet throws a couple $bil into Linux, _something_ would happen… not sure quite what, though )
In short, the opsys (Linux or OS.X or Vista) isn’t the real product that people buy. Rather the Desktop that people buy is a package of CYA, center of the herd, on-the-winning-side and smarmy strokes that sort of works well enough. It’s like the Tonight Show – it gives everybody something in common to talk about and who cares if it’s any good anyway if it doesn’t hurt you too much more than it does the other guy.
Now do you really want Linux handled like that? Because I think that is and has always been the name of the game for mass market products.
Regards, Rufus
Jan 09, 2008 @ 23:50:08vdanen
You have a point, in some respects.
People using Linux, or rather, certain flavours of Linux, do have big brother to yell at. For instance, if you buy a copy of SUSE or Red Hat, or even Mandriva, you do have someone to yell at when things go wrong. Trust me… people aren’t shy when it comes to that. I’ve had many an earful on updates that have gone awry, or even things that are completely out of our hands. But that’s par for the course… you sell something, you have to expect that. And no one is debating or denying that.
Of course, railing at someone always makes people feel better, regardless of whether it’s their fault or the manufacturer’s fault. And that’s fine too. I’m not saying that the one-man distro who gives it all away completely for free deserves to be yelled at when something goes wrong. After all, you get what you pay for and there is no guarantee. But when you pay for an OS, you get some support regardless of whether you’re entitled to it or not… that’s just the name of the game and people who can’t accept that shouldn’t be trying to sell something.
Try complaining about a bug or something to Microsoft or Apple, as Joe Average, and see how far that gets you. Complain to SUSE or Mandriva or Red Hat, and I suspect you’ll get a lot further. Fortunately, with something like Linux, there are other options (DIY, community, etc.).
None of these, however, refute the fact that the Linux community has basically blocked out an entire community of developers that could, very realistically, be leveraged to promote Linux without any additional effort on the community’s part. Everyone talks about the “killer app” that Linux needs to succeed, but who’s developing it? Joe Hacker with a fulltime job, wife and kid, mortgage.. is he going to spending his spare time developing the “killer app” for free? Or is some big company going to develop the “killer app” and charge a few hundred dollars for it… something that only mid- and large-sized business can buy?
Or is it going to be Joe Hacker who has the time to devote to developing a quality app knowing that he can make a business out of it and spend the time to develop something because he’s going to charge $80 a license and can live off that (provided he didn’t get kicked in the face for attempting it in the first place)?
My money is on Joe Hacker #2.. he’s going to be the one to develop the “killer app”… not someone or a few someone’s working on something in their spare time and as inspiration comes to them (because their sole motivation is “warm fuzzies”), and not the commercial guys who’ll charge something that’s out of the league of the average user. It’ll be the middle guy, the one who has a good app that’s well designed and well developed and who has the time to devote to improving it knowing that in the process he can feed himself. I don’t see the problem with that.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 00:27:59Randy
I’m a returnee Mandriva PowerPack installer, I’ve mainly used Mandrake/Mandriva but I have also installed Slackware, Suse, and RedHat before. I am not a programmer but I do tinker with small scripts to customize them for my system. I would buy shareware if I found the program useful….i.e: Superkaramba, Amarok, Frozen Bubble…etc
From the first time I checked into Linux, about 10 years ago, I found the ‘it has to be free’ mentality of the community a bit off-putting since I’m a capitalist at heart. I also admit that I originally thought “if it is free than can it be that good?” I have since learned it can be good but when things go wrong it is better to have a company, (i.e.: someone who gets paid to take care of my problems) to go to for support rather than a newsgroup.
It’s late, hopefully that made sense.
Randy
Jan 10, 2008 @ 01:30:14chris
To second randy, i will say that, when you use GNU/Linux, the very mantra that comes to your mind is “Free,Open source” kind of thing. And as you have said that there are damn good s/w in the open source arena, the shareware market didn’t get off at all in the GNU/Linux domain.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 23:09:25I mean, why a GNU/Linux user will pay for something if he/she likes the product?? That is not the mantra of “Being free as in freedom”.
So, it’s all because of the degree of freedom that is given to us, and in case of GNU/Linux, its the highest.
Isaac
The answer is… GPL. For Windows and Mac, users will eventually pay the OS upgrade. So most users have struggled through the obstacle to pay for their software. This is not the case for Linux. Your copy of SuSE may cost you money. But GPL, the license of Linux, disallows a distributor not to allow redistribution. So SuSE cannot stop you making a copy of your installation CD to a friend, who won’t have to pay to run SuSE. Adding to the “battery included” nature of Linux distributions, most Linux users never struggled through the need to pay for software at all.
It means shareware developers must face a landscape in which overwhelming majority of users won’t pay at all, yet they have to provide sufficient functionality to attract the attention of many unpaid users to spread the words. And then they have to ensure that there are obstacles to stop free software developers from reimplementing what their program does. If that is not bad enough, they have to avoid all the useful free libraries that are marked GPL instead of LGPL when they develop their software, even though FSF actively promote most library of the platform to use GPL. No wonder this is not a paradise for shareware authors, who are low budget individuals seeking to enter niche market. (Shareware-like commercial software does exist for server market, but the authors are typically very well-funded.)
Jan 10, 2008 @ 23:11:37Dâniel Fraga
Freeware != open source != free software
We have lots of Free Software, some open source and very little freeware. Shareware? Well… I really prefer free software.. so I don’t care about it.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 23:19:18Anon
freeware != open source.
Open source is created for someone’s need. So most likely you have never had someone with the combination of 1) Your need 2) skills required develop the program to fulfill the need 3) The time 4) the mindset to make it open source such that it can be put into software repositories.
Writing about it on an internet post is less useful than learning a new skill is less useful than developing something others can use. Most useless of all is writing about someone writing about it!
Fingers on keys, write code/scripts/draw pretty pictures/translate existing apps/write good bug reports/write how-tos/document a program all.
Jan 10, 2008 @ 23:32:57Blaise Alleyne
Have you ever even heard of free software? Not free as in price, but with respect to freedom?
The “zealots” don’t want software to have no cost associated with it, they want to have the freedom to control the software. The result of free software is that it’s often available at no cost, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be sold.
If you’re making a distinction between open source (ie. free software) and commercial software, you are already confused.
Read: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
The term “commercial” says nothing about whether software is proprietary or not.
GNU/Linux users don’t accept shareware because it’s non-free. We moved away from Windows and OS X to get rid of “those dirty licenses”. It’s the proprietary software licenses that GNU/Linux users hate, not the cost.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 01:24:47vdanen
With respect to those indicating that open source != freeware, you’re absolutely right. There is a definite distinction there, but that wasn’t the concern I had (nor was I concerned with the freedom of being able to do whatever you want with software). You need to take the rose-tinted glasses off and think about this for a bit.
Not everyone needs, wants, or cares about freedom in software. If they did, we would all be a hell of a lot further with the advancement of Linux in direct opposition to Windows and the Mac. Some people care about that freedom. More people will care once they learn about it and “get” it. But that’s not now, and it certainly isn’t today. The point is to get to where the critical mass involved to educate the “average” computer user, to get to the point where Linux has more than just 0.6% of the desktop marketshare (or whatever lowly estimate it happens to be today), do things need to change? This is the theoretical question I’m asking. Remember, the Linux users of tomorrow are the shareware-using Windows/Mac users of today, right?
And when I was referring to commercial software, I’m referring to closed-source proprietary “big business” software. I guess I forgot to use my thesaurus on that one. My apologies.
Oh, and yeah, I have heard of free software. Been working for a company that distributes, promotes, and believes in free software very very much. I’ve even written my own. In fact, I work with free software every day, and work on it as a hobby.
So no, I’m not some clueless journalist looking for a couple quick hits and trying to stir up some sensationalism. What I’m doing is expressing a question I thought was interesting that had come to me that it doesn’t seem like anyone has really addressed. I respect your views and agree with (some of) them And I certainly want to hear them; that’s why I wrote this thing in the first place, to get a feel for what others think about this. However, I honestly don’t think most Linux-using folks would pay for shareware, and I don’t think that all of them would think of it as “dirty licensing”. I’m sure for many there are less “pure” reasons… Linux, due to it’s very nature, appeals to the cheapskates so if someone doesn’t think they need to pay for their OS or most of the software they’re using, why would they want to spend their beer money on other software? These are the same guys who use free software and don’t bother sending a thank you to the author (they’ll send flames and hoot and holler when things don’t work), don’t bother sending them a few dollars as a token of their appreciation, don’t bother sending good bug reports (they’d rather just bitch), and certainly couldn’t be bothered to help translate or help with documentation.
Let’s just face it… Linux and the whole open source philosophy appeals to the purists who want the “free software society” and who believe in the freedom to do whatever they like with their software, and that’s awesome. However, it also appeals to the cheap buggers who don’t think about their software being free (freedom) but rather just plain old free (price). I think that a lot of them simply don’t care about the freedom part just because the price is right, which is sad because there’s a lot more to it than just being able keep a few more dollars in your pocket than in someone else’s.
I’ve been on all ends of the spectrum here in the last decade. I’ve been user, distributor, developer, documenter, observer, and supporter (in terms of both advocacy and “customer support”). I see how things were 10 years ago, and I see how they are now. I’ve watched change, good and bad, and I’ve weathered some not-so-fun stuff. I would not trade any of it for a minute, but I don’t think my understanding or motives in this area can be questioned as I’ve not been on the sidelines looking in, thinking “this is some cool stuff to write about”, but I’ve lived and breathed this for longer than a lot of the people using Linux today. Just so that you’re aware that I’m not some bozo writing about something I know nothing about.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 02:01:49Th C
You miss the point. Shareware is commercial software, not a third beast between “freeware” and “commercial”. You might get the demo for free and the full version for a reasonable price, that doesn’t make it different from other commercial software. It’s closed-source, and you sell the right to use it.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 02:09:25Lucas
Personally, I’m glad there is barely any shareware for Unix. I can’t stand having to filter through thousands of shareware programs and sites dedicated to shareware programs to find one that does a simple action for free (on Windows). Don’t believe me? See for yourself! I remember searching this once.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 02:18:18r_a_trip
You have given the answer yourself, vdanen. There is no market for shareware on GNU/Linux.
Those who believe in Software Freedom, will not eagerly touch proprietary software. Those who are cheapskates, will not pay for software period. As long as software can be cracked, they will crack it.
Where does that leave the shareware author? Dead in the water.
One group doesn’t want his wares, because of the licensing. The other group just steals it.
So is there a need to change? Not really. There is no demand for shareware, why introduce it then?
Thinking shareware will get the masses on GNU/Linux is a pipe dream. As long as Redmond controls the preloading deals, there will not be a significant penetration of GNU/Linux anywhere.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 04:03:49G Fernandes
Like ‘C’ says, you’ve missed the point. Shareware is essentially crippled demo software serving the purpose of marketing to potentially interested buyers (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware for a more apt description).
For people involved in the Libre (I prefer this word as the word ‘free’ is almost always taken to mean free as in free beer) Software movement, that business model simply doesn’t work.
Look at Red-Hat. Or JBoss. Or MySQL. Actually you might even want to take a closer look at IBM. Or Sun.
The premise of Libre Software is strong infrastructure on which to sell services. All successful Libre Software Organisations make money selling services. They commoditise software and capitalise service.
Clearly those wishing to capitalise software – i.e. commercial and by extension, necessarily shareware providers – work on a different business model.
Since the sponsors of Libre software do not wish to capitalise software, there is no motivation or need for shareware. Period.
It’s the business model of the vendors/sponsors that determine what the customer is offered/pays for.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 07:34:25G Fernandes
Continuing from what I said earlier, as in the business model of those capitalising software you see shareware (aka discounted/limited functionality/limited usage commercial software) being offered as a means of attracting potential buyers, in the Libre Software world you see discounted service offerings with lower cost typically meaning reduced/limited support and higher cost typically meaning guaranteed response times and resolutions.
That, if you wish, is the “shareware” you’re looking for in this (Libre Software) world (business-model).
Jan 11, 2008 @ 07:42:24David F. Skoll
The lack of shareware is not at all strange. Shareware combines the
WORST of both worlds: The restrictive licensing terms of traditional
commercial software (no modifications, no redistribution allowed,
typically no source) with the typical lack of documentation and formal
support of many of the smaller free software projects.
Why on earth would I want shareware? Free Software fits the bill just
Jan 11, 2008 @ 07:50:00fine, thanks.
Stomfi
On the PC or the MAC, the developer is trying to recoup the cost of the IDEs and compilers. Unless you are using something really easy like Runtime Revolution, all the other tools are free on Linux, so where is the justification.
But there is shareware available for Linux. There are RunRev sites that offer some accessories as well as some writing in Adobe Flex. Most of them are timed demos which can give the user the chance to develop their own version, especially with the simpler RunRev IDE.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 08:00:59Willem Voogd
You ask whether linux needs shareware to compete. Compete with what actually? And who is competing? IMO linux, or better the computing world needs open standards in order to survive without restricting people in choice. I personally don’t care whether linux becomes more popular i just want it to work for me, without having to have an illegal copy of IE run over wine to do bank accounting over the web (yes i did change banks because my former bank only supported online banking via IE).
Whether the ‘zealots’ will ‘permit’ shareware is a non issue. The question is whether the shareware makers will find linux an interesting target. I don’t think so, that is because most (smart) developers using linux make use of other free software and therefor it is illegal for them to change license. And no, linux users don’t mind paying money. If you look at various sourceforge projects you will see that you can pay the developer to keep developing if you want and people make use of it as well.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 08:02:23Saygin?
I have to echo Isaac and Th C’s points: First the requirements of the GPL license makes it difficult for a developer to distribute while asking for monetary compensation. Part of the lack of shareware as you are familiar with in the Mac and Windows paradigms can be attributed to the popularity of the GPL in the FLOSS world.
Secondly, to expand on Th C’s point: I don’t see shareware as being entirely separate from the other two categories. Some shareware developers distribute shareware versions of software hoping for voluntary compensation. Others distribute shareware versions of software that actively motivate contributions – perhaps by disabling features, or reminding users of their continuous free-rider use. (WSFTP for example.) Do those that “hope” for contributions, but not require it differ that much from the FLOSS developers in nature? Are those who provide motivations for contributions so different from the tradition commercial developer?
Finally, I would argue that when one looks at the manner of development of FLOSS – developing for one’s needs, but putting back for the use of others – one can see the outlines of a system that is in fact “truer” to the idea of shareware. Shared use, shared development, continuous improvement, etc.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 10:00:44vdanen
This is good stuff. Thanks for posting all of this, folks. Again, this was me posing the theoretical question. I’m actually quite impressed with the responses… no flaming (weird!) but very articulate responses.
I agree with you guys, you’ve made the point very well.
I guess the next question that begs to be asked is why isn’t shareware on the decline on other platforms? The GPL isn’t restricted to Linux, and there are, as has been stated, a tone of good libraries under the GPL that can be used. Why aren’t they being used on other platforms, or at least why aren’t they being used more?
Lots of questions, and the answers are definitely interesting as they indicate the differing mindsets of people who use Linux vs those using closed operating systems. Does the OS itself dictate the development model of people developing for it? Looks like it does.
I have no idea about IDE’s for Windows, but Xcode on the mac is free and that’s what most developers use, so the argument that charging for shareware is a means of recouping the expense of the IDE doesn’t seem to hold water, at least not for the mac (no idea for windows).
Jan 11, 2008 @ 11:05:23conholster
Well…most of the Shareware isnt that good…For any shareware out there, theres something opensource that does the job as good or better! And its not about the money, infact there are a few apps that I’d like to see ported to linux and yes I would pay for them! And I have bought software for linux in the past. OTOH, how much software is cracked, stolen and distributed for free on windows and mac?
On a final note dont mention “rose-tinted glasses” and GNU in the same article, it just makes you look like a troll. And you probably know that too.
Jan 11, 2008 @ 14:49:15vdanen
Rose-tinted glasses and GNU makes *me* look like a troll?
The response makes you look like a zealot, sorry. The GNU crowd can’t take criticism? Come on, there are some GNU advocates that make religious fanatics look like placid sheep. I’m impressed no one has been foaming at the mouth in response to this yet.
I guess trolls are simply people who say things you don’t want to hear, right? =)
Jan 11, 2008 @ 15:11:36conholster
“Rose-tinted glasses and GNU makes *me* look like a troll?”
Yes I think so, most ppl writing about opensource/GNU try to downplay the community with comments like that. And considering “Rose-tinted glasses” is pretty much is tied to doing drugs, listening to music and going nowhere in life, I find it hard to draw any lines to sitting in front of a computer working on an free OS for free.
“The response makes you look like a zealot, sorry.”
Yea it might…you dont read alot of gaming forums do you?
I’d say I’m more like semi-zealot?
Anyways….what I was trying to say in my first post it isnt the communitys fault there isnt any shareware for GNU/linux. It’s the shareware devs own fault. You dont get alot of customers if you a) dont have a product b) make inferior products c) your product doesnt have a clear advantage over the competiton.
Jan 12, 2008 @ 01:47:51vdanen
No, I’m not talking about drugs, psychadelic music, whatever ’60′s thing… rose-tinted glasses, to me, is seeing the world as it’s not… you see the world, but it’s a lot prettier than the actual reality. I suppose I could have said pipe dream, but that has a heavier (to me) impression of drugs…. =) It’s about perspective, not music or drugs.
And no, actually, I don’t read any gaming forums (well, any forums other than the odd technical ones when I’m googling for some info). I guess since you weren’t stark raving mad, yeah, I can live with semi-zealot.
And no, I think it’s a combination of both. I don’t think you can say that shareware is inferior, or that it has no clear advantage over the competition. I’ve seen, and use, some really good shareware that is much much nicer than some open source equivalents.
The “don’t have a product” is the big thing, but maybe it’s because their intimidated or (perhaps rightly so) figure that trying to market software, for pay, to a community that is used to, and expects, free (price and libre) is a lost cause because no one will want to a) give up money or b) give up their freedom (to dissect, examine, or otherwise use in any fashion they want the software they’re using).
But you can’t make blanket statements that the software is inferior or has no advantage. That most definitely is the rose-tinted glasses talking. =)
Jan 12, 2008 @ 02:07:56Query
>But you can’t make blanket statements that the software is
>inferior or has no advantage. That most definitely is the
rose-tinted glasses >talking. =)
No, but you can talk about the mean, and the deviation and the shape of the distribution. It is unlikely that there are no advantages, but most likely that shareware helps fewer people than free/libre software, also no-one can build upon your work, which software developers usually have ingrained into them “Don’t reinvent the wheel – link against it” – Code re-use and whatnot
>The “don’t have a product” is the big thing, but maybe it’s
>because their intimidated or (perhaps rightly so) figure that
>trying to market software, for pay, to a community that is used
>to, and expects, free (price and libre) is a lost cause because no
>one will want to a) give up money or b) give up their freedom (to
>dissect, examine, or otherwise use in any fashion they want the
>software they’re using).
As for money, some companies make good profits off libre software, usually by following a slightly less conventional model. Trolltech is a really good example, with the dual-licence agreements. The people who make qcad use a delayed release format, where if you want the latest and greatest you pay for it, alternatively you wait a year or two. Or you can for the sourceforge marketplace type work is good too – write code for a commission, satisfy a customer, then release the results (i think thats the idea). There are more examples I’m certain, just requires some creativity rather than “we develop and sell software”.
Or you can go for what many products do – the busybox/eeepc route – where you use free/libre software to reduce development costs of a product – then sell it without the “software tax”.
As for costs of development per-platform, you can use libre IDEs such as eclipse (which sent borland out of the IDE market), or less full-featured IDEs such as dev-c++, good for smallish projects. Heck some developers shun the IDE completely and write their makefiles/cmake/autotools/whatever rules by hand and use a syntax aware text-editor for markup. I know a few windows developers who do this.
Why do you have more shareware appearing on mac/windows, its well supported by the windows/mac model; more pronounced on windows. MS sell software by and large – it would be completely against their interests to show people good free/libre software; might back themselves into a corner with users demanding that MS software become free/libre.
Mac takes a more pragmatic approach and neither promotes nor shuns either. They depend heavily on free/libre software (BSD kernel? GCC? thousands of little gnu-apps?) and need them to write their software – but they don’t want to promote replacements for monoliths like Itunes, nor “time machine” or whatever fancy “feature” they have cobbled together from libre software openssl (MD5) SSH(“remote login”) SMB?
Jan 12, 2008 @ 08:22:50Mike R.
I believe that shareware fits more with the closed source OS’s than it does with Open Source. But I’ve donated to a couple of OSS projects just because I liked them. Nothing crippled about the software. Just thought the author deserved something for his time.
And see if you remember someone from a long time ago.
Jan 12, 2008 @ 14:23:08vdanen
Would that be a Mike Roark, an old buddy back from the BBS days? =)
Jan 12, 2008 @ 15:31:56Mike R.
That’s the one! I recognized the address when I hit the link, and just had to respond. I couldn’t find the email link quickly so thought this was the best way to say Hi!!
Mike
Jan 13, 2008 @ 12:12:15vdanen
Hey, that definitely worked. =) Definitely need to do some catching up here… been a long time. Gonna fire you off an email here.
Jan 14, 2008 @ 09:16:57