Should we start a programming consortium?

[davbren]

Now that Linux is finally picking up the pace and becoming more mainstream, we need some real top notch applications to compliment the user experience. That isn't to say that the apps are confined to native desktop apps, they could be web apps too.

So I'm suggesting a programming consortium.

As a community we discuss applications and their features, look & feel, audience, etc. then whoever wants to develop it (individual or a team) can do so with the financial backing of the community.

Each benefactor then has a percentage stake in the application once it is complete to release quality. If the app is a paid for service, each benefactor is entitled to a percentage of that including the developer. If it is a free app, then the any revenue from possible sponsorship is shared out fairly.

Disclaimer: I know that this is controversial, I do think, however, that the idea is sound for the most part. If people have ideas on how to make this better then feel free. I do understand the free ideals of the Linux community having been part of it for nearly ten years. It doesn't mean that the developers shouldn't be paid for hard work, especially when we have a chance at making some really good software. I truly believe that this could be beneficial to the community and maybe even the industry as a whole.

[Paqman]

Now that Linux is finally picking up the pace and becoming more mainstream

Eh? What makes you say that?

You are right about one thing though, basic supply and demand will mean that if desktop Linux ever did start to take off, commercially developed apps would take a more prominent role. Right now though, with Linux's minute share on the desktop it generally only makes sense to spend money on cross-platform. I'm not sure splitting the money a zillion ways would be a good idea, either. A lot of the financially successful desktop apps like Calibre do so by being a one-man band.

[davbren]

Well, for a while netbooks were mostly linux. People kicked up a fuss mainly because of the apps.

I'm mainly trying to think of a way to get professionally made applications for linux by spreading the burden of paying for it. I envisage that each major release would incur further payments for the developer(s). It's currently just an idea, but tis something I would definitely want to explore.

[regala]

Well, for a while netbooks were mostly linux. People kicked up a fuss mainly because of the apps.

I'm mainly trying to think of a way to get professionally made applications for linux by spreading the burden of paying for it. I envisage that each major release would incur further payments for the developer(s). It's currently just an idea, but tis something I would definitely want to explore.

wow. People. You want to talk about Linux and mainstream ? Stop thinking you will be heard on Ubuntu forums. Register, sign up with the Linux Foundation, these are the guys that you want to talk to.

[davbren]

I'd quite like to talk to users and developers. Limiting myself to the Linux foundation is just as fruitless as limiting myself here. This is just the first step.

[fatality_uk]

If you get 10 Linux developers in a room, you can bet your bottom dollar that 12 opinions will emerge!!

[davbren]

If you get 10 Linux developers in a room, you can bet your bottom dollar that 12 opinions will emerge!!

Which is why the features and whatnot are decided before its given to the developer.

[Paqman]

Which is why the features and whatnot are decided before its given to the developer.

What do the developers get out of putting you in charge of them? Sounds like all you're offering them is less freedom and less money.

Good software is developed with a multi-disciplinary approach, but if you want to get involved then you need to be bringing something to the table besides opinions. Canonical does employ people that do nothing but UI design, graphic design, etc as do other Linux software patrons. If you think you've got the skills keep an eye out for jobs.

[davbren]

The developers get the money that is raised through the consortium.

I know that there are many disciplines for good software design. As I said before this is just a preliminary idea. I don't doubt that it can be improved.

developers, especially freelance ones rarely have the freedom to decide what will and won't be in the final release. Often I'm given a list of requirements to fulfill and then I get on with it.

[Paqman]

The developers get the money that is raised through the consortium.

My point is, the consortium would have to be bringing them something worth quite a lot. You're asking them to split any income a lot of ways, especially if they're doing the lion's share of the work. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where your consortium adds enough value to make it a better business model than the other options.

What sort of management structure would it have? What would differentiate it from an ordinary software startup? Where would the finance come from?