Would you use Linux if it was closed-source?

[monsterstack]

Imagine an alternate reality where a team of IBM engineers had developed the Linux kernel and licensed it out to a few companies. Imagine then that there are a few vaguely different corporate distributions today, IBM Red Hat GX Pro, IBM Novell Pro Enterprise, IBM Canonical Probuntu XXS, that sort of thing. Stretch your imagination a bit and consider the possibility that these distributions are vaguely similar to what we have now. There is no community development of the core system, but the big vendors have all sorts of interoperability and licensing schemes to make them all vaguely compatible with one another. Open-source programmes such as Firefox and what have you still exist. The hardware compatibility problems are in-line with what we have today, and Microsoft still dominate on the desktop and in corporate environments. The distributions are similarly priced to Windows.

So, would you use it?

[Tipped OuT]

Yes, if it meant all of the driver issues would be fixed and applications like Photoshop would have a Linux version.

[Viva]

It wouldn't be as good if its closed-source.

[Tipped OuT]

It wouldn't be as good if its closed-source.

If it's closed source, it would eventually get the same support of Windows or Mac (in terms of applications and drivers) for various reasons, which I do not feel like explaining at the moment, but it has to do with money and market share.

[mofrikaantje]

What's the point of using it then? All the community work would go to waste and would become obsolete, to name just two things, and the entire concept of "changing it yourself whenever/whatever you like" + "owning what you buy" would be gone. Just my € 0.02....

[cmay]

no.
and it would not last long anyway.

[LepeKaname]

Something good about Linux is that you don't have to wait until the "close-company" fix your problems.

I'm talking about FREEDOM not just FREE ($).

I wouldn't use a closed-source Linux if I have an open and Free alternative (no matters how better it is). That is also why I don't use Mac. ;P

[ctrlmd]

If and only if it support all the applications and the games like windows
then yes

[starcannon]

I'd be using BSD or Minix I expect, or some other OSS based OS. Indeed one of those 2 would likely have become the OSS defacto. I don't mind paying money, but the life blood of Linux seems to be collaboration on an epic scale; something closed source has a very difficult time achieving(practically impossible actually)

[monsterstack]

I'd be using BSD or Minix I expect, or some other OSS based OS. Indeed one of those 2 would likely have become the OSS defacto. I don't mind paying money, but the life blood of Linux seems to be collaboration on an epic scale; something closed source has a very difficult time achieving(practically impossible actually)

I reckon I'd probably go with one of the BSD distros as well. Because when some company comes along and forks an application into ProBusinessEnterprise12, we still have the original to work with, and the open source spirit goes on.

[SeanOScare]

I definitely don't think I would, because it is thanks to free OS's such as Ubuntu, that the computing market hasn't been financially exclusive. I especially praise the introduction of Ubuntu Studio, to show people that although you have to spend alot more time learning the ropes of open source multimedia projects, you can still achieve professional results for free.

[Giant Speck]

I wouldn't mind paying money for Linux, so if Linux was to become non-libre, I'd still buy it and use it.

While I really don't care if Linux is open-source or not (I'd probably still use it if it was closed-source), I would think that being closed-source would defeat the purpose of Linux in the first place.

[Ozor Mox]

If Linux was not FOSS but the hardware and software support was the same as it is now, I can't really see much of an advantage to using it over the alternatives. Like others have said, probably BSD or something would have become the standard FOSS OS, or the FSF would have developed a full GNU system under the GPL, and maybe even Herd would be finished!


If it's closed source, it would eventually get the same support of Windows or Mac (in terms of applications and drivers) for various reasons, which I do not feel like explaining at the moment, but it has to do with money and market share.

I would like it if you did get round to explaining this at some point, because it is something I've always had a problem with. Obviously the advantages to Linux being such a diverse and flexible platform are well known to us. Clearly the benefits of Windows and OS X having single, defined companies backing them and controlling them can be seen from a hardware and software support standpoint.

[Giant Speck]

I would like it if you did get round to explaining this at some point...

Me, too. You make it sound like being closed-source automagically brings software and hardware support.

[Tipped OuT]

Me, too. You make it sound like being closed-source automagically brings software and hardware support.

If it's closed source, it will cost money to obtain it. Thus, Linux gets a higher market share, thus, (for example) video game company's will start making more of there games for Linux because of it's higher market share. More users, more buyers, more profit for them and from there a chain re-action will set off, manufacturers will start providing good quality drivers for Linux. Why? because of the higher market share, they want people that use Linux to purchase there hardware, and people won't if there hardware isn't supported on Linux. And so on and so on.

It's all about money folks.

PS: It's 3:47 AM over here, I'm tired, sorry if I sound a little confusing.

[BackwardsDown]

If it's closed source, it will cost money to obtain it. Thus, Linux gets a higher market share,
That's not logical. Closed source does not mean that it will cost money. And if I start to sell Ubuntu for 50 euro a cd Ubuntu will get a higher market share?

[mofrikaantje]

If it's closed source, it will cost money to obtain it. Thus, Linux gets a higher market share,
This sounds... contradictory.

However, I do believe that there is a possibilty to make money on Linux ánd improve market share ánd usability: support-solutions for e.g. companies.

[mofrikaantje]

That's not logical. Closed source does not mean that it will cost money. And if I start to sell Ubuntu for 50 euro a cd Ubuntu will get a higher market share?

What he said.

[Tipped OuT]

*sigh* Good night.

[benj1]

this is a bit silly, linux didn't become popular because its linux, but because its open source, if ibm had written it it would probably be as popular as os2,
the open source community would just have found a different kernel, we might be all using hurd. (or would that be GNU/hurd ;))

[mofrikaantje]

*sigh* Good night.
Just explain why paying for a product, makes the product automatically better and automatically enlarges its market share?

[MaxIBoy]

If Linux had remained proprietary, it would not exist today. End of story.

[b@sh_n3rd]

I wouldn't have even researched on it :D

[Tipped OuT]

Just explain why paying for a product, makes the product automatically better and automatically enlarges its market share?

Do you even know what market share is? If you knew, I don't think you'd be asking me that question. And no, you can't increase market share by selling your Ubuntu CD to a friend, that's just ludicrous.

And like I said before, it's all about money.

Heres a more clearer explanation, although this is about video games, not operating systems, but you get the picture:

A commercial game that you have to pay for is generally better then a game you can download for free from the Internet.

Why? Because the commercial game has PAID (money) professionals, to do the work. How does the company pay for the professionals? They make a profit. How? They make the game GOOD, so people will actually BUY (money) it and they can make there profit (money money money).

I'm just 15 years old, so please be easy on me, but I pretty much have a basic idea how things go down.

[doas777]

If it's closed source, it would eventually get the same support of Windows or Mac (in terms of applications and drivers) for various reasons, which I do not feel like explaining at the moment, but it has to do with money and market share.


exactly. if it was closed, the marketshare would drop to 0, and any replacement would have to compete equally with ms. we've seen how well that has worked for all the commercial competition. oh wait, they all went outta biz or into the server/middleware market a decade or more ago.

[Viva]

Do you even know what market share is? If you knew, I don't think you'd be asking me that question. And no, you can't increase market share by selling your Ubuntu CD to a friend, that's just ludicrous.

And like I said before, it's all about money.

Heres a more clearer explanation, although this is about video games, not operating systems, but you get the picture:

A commercial game that you have to pay for is generally better then a game you can download for free from the Internet.

Why? Because the commercial game has PAID (money) professionals, to do the work. How does the company pay for the professionals? They make a profit. How? They make the game GOOD, so people will actually BUY (money) it and they can make there profit (money money money).

I'm just 15 years old, so please be easy on me, but I pretty much have a basic idea how things go down.

is there a commercial browser that works better than firefox?

[Tipped OuT]

is there a commercial browser that works better than firefox?

Uh, no because all web browsers are free as far as I'm concerned. But a web browser made by a commercial company that can rival Firefox, that would be Google, and Google Chrome is starting to become the superior browser.

[Viva]

Uh, no because all web browsers are free as far as I'm concerned. But a web browser made by a commercial company that can rival Firefox, that would be Google, and Google Chrome is starting to become the superior browser.

Chrome is opensource too and Mozilla are about as non-profit as google. Their annual revenue is about 50 million.

[Tipped OuT]

Chrome is opensource too and it is your opinion that it is a better browser than firefox.

Did you not read my post clearly? I said it's MADE by a commercial company, not it's a commercial product.

And okay, it's my opinion that Google Chrome is better, and it's your opinion that Firefox is better. Nothing more to talk about really, I explained to you already how closed source "magically" makes things better,
so I hope you got some basic understanding from this.

If you have any more questions, shoot for it and I'll try to answer. ;)

Although, I think we killed this thread already. :lolflag:

[Viva]

Did you not read my post clearly? I said it's MADE by a commercial company, not it's a commercial product.

And okay, it's my opinion that Google Chrome is better, and it's your opinion that Firefox is better. Nothing more to talk about really, I explained to you already how closed source "magically" makes things better,
so I hope you got some basic understanding from this.

If you have any more questions, shoot for it and I'll try to answer. ;)

I've edited my post. Mozilla are a commercial organization. Open source developers are not charity workers and open source organizations are not always non-profit.

[mofrikaantje]

Why? Because the commercial game has PAID (money) professionals, to do the work. How does the company pay for the professionals? They make a profit. How? They make the game GOOD, so people will actually BUY (money) it and they can make there profit (money money money).

As already pointed out before: what about a non-profit organisation then? A company/an organisation that doesn't have as a main purpose to generate profits for its stock holders, but instead to develop and promote their product? And what if that product just happens to be technologically superior? Or what would you do with government-funded software?
I just want to point out to you that big companies or a company-attitude towards a project isn't the magic a product needs to become popular. And gain a larger market share - that is: more users. Not more value on the stock exchange. You could compare this with the financial crisis: a more commercial approach towards savings and loans etc. seemed to pay off, but what did we get? People driven into poverty, and a financial crisis which now largely affects the real, economical world. The power of profit isn't omnipotent :)

[SuperSonic4]

After being forced to use vista for a few hours then yes I would - I'd pay for the inherent quality that linux brings to the table. Being free is a bonus

[Tipped OuT]

I've edited my post. Mozilla are a commercial organization. Open source developers are not charity workers and open source organizations are not always non-profit.

Okay you win.


After being forced to use vista for a few hours then yes I would - I'd pay for the inherent quality that linux brings to the table. Being free is a bonus

Yeah, the main thing I like about Linux is how resource light it is.

[monsterstack]

Did you not read my post clearly? I said it's MADE by a commercial company, not it's a commercial product.

And okay, it's my opinion that Google Chrome is better, and it's your opinion that Firefox is better. Nothing more to talk about really, I explained to you already how closed source "magically" makes things better,
so I hope you got some basic understanding from this.

If you have any more questions, shoot for it and I'll try to answer. ;)

Although, I think we killed this thread already. :lolflag:

I thought about the idea that commercial applications are always better than free applications. But then I remembered Microsoft Automotive (http://www.microsoft.com/industry/manufacturing/automotive/default.mspx), Microsoft ActiMates (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/sept97/mspbspr.mspx), Microsoft Venus (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/1999/03-10shenzhen.mspx), Microsoft Bob (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/speech/FY06/Ballmer2FAM2006.mspx?info=EXLINK), Microsoft Talisman (http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=68335), Microsoft Live Search (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/factsheet/LiveSearchFS.mspx), Microsoft Vizcat (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/May99/VizactPR.mspx), Microsoft Windows Vista (http://www.microsoft.com/ireland/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/ultimate/default.mspx), Microsoft Smart Display (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/smartdisplay/default.mspx), Microsoft Encarta (http://www.microsoft.com/uk/encarta/default.mspx), Microsoft Equipt (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/959675), Microsoft Digital Image Suite (http://www.microsoft.com/products/imaging/default.mspx), Microsoft Automated Service Agents (http://www.microsoft.com/events/podcasts/default.aspx?topic=Topic-e1a84e52-b637-4385-9260-2f14fe077c07&pageId=x1052), Microsoft Forms Server (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/formsserver/default.aspx), MSN Groups (http://spaces.live.com/editorial/en-us/render/msngroupsclosure.htm), Microsoft Dynamics Entrepreneur (http://www.microsoft.com/australia/dynamics/entrepreneursolution/default.mspx), Microsoft Office Accounting (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/accounting/FX100518171033.aspx), Microsoft Office Live (http://www.officelive.com/), Microsoft Onecare (http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/3/default.htm), Microsoft PerformancePoint Server (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/performancepoint/FX101680481033.aspx), Microsoft Roundtable (http://www.microsoft.com/UC/products/roundtable.mspx) and Microsoft Sharepoint Designer (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointdesigner/FX100487631033.aspx).

[Tipped OuT]

I thought about the idea that commercial applications are always better than free applications. But then I remembered Microsoft Automotive (http://www.microsoft.com/industry/manufacturing/automotive/default.mspx), Microsoft ActiMates (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/sept97/mspbspr.mspx), Microsoft Venus (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/1999/03-10shenzhen.mspx), Microsoft Bob (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/speech/FY06/Ballmer2FAM2006.mspx?info=EXLINK), Microsoft Talisman (http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=68335), Microsoft Live Search (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/factsheet/LiveSearchFS.mspx), Microsoft Vizcat (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/May99/VizactPR.mspx), Microsoft Windows Vista (http://www.microsoft.com/ireland/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/ultimate/default.mspx), Microsoft Smart Display (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/smartdisplay/default.mspx), Microsoft Encarta (http://www.microsoft.com/uk/encarta/default.mspx), Microsoft Equipt (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/959675), Microsoft Digital Image Suite (http://www.microsoft.com/products/imaging/default.mspx), Microsoft Automated Service Agents (http://www.microsoft.com/events/podcasts/default.aspx?topic=Topic-e1a84e52-b637-4385-9260-2f14fe077c07&pageId=x1052), Microsoft Forms Server (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/formsserver/default.aspx), MSN Groups (http://spaces.live.com/editorial/en-us/render/msngroupsclosure.htm), Microsoft Dynamics Entrepreneur (http://www.microsoft.com/australia/dynamics/entrepreneursolution/default.mspx), Microsoft Office Accounting (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/accounting/FX100518171033.aspx), Microsoft Office Live (http://www.officelive.com/), Microsoft Onecare (http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/3/default.htm), Microsoft PerformancePoint Server (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/performancepoint/FX101680481033.aspx), Microsoft Roundtable (http://www.microsoft.com/UC/products/roundtable.mspx) and Microsoft Sharepoint Designer (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointdesigner/FX100487631033.aspx).

Oh come on, you know Microsoft is a terrible example, all there stuff is crap :lolflag:.

But on a serious note, yeah good point. But most commercial applications *in general* are better then there open source counter part, but not all the time.

[benj1]

I thought about the idea that commercial applications are always better than free applications. But then I remembered Microsoft Automotive (http://www.microsoft.com/industry/manufacturing/automotive/default.mspx), Microsoft ActiMates (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/sept97/mspbspr.mspx), Microsoft Venus (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/1999/03-10shenzhen.mspx), Microsoft Bob (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/speech/FY06/Ballmer2FAM2006.mspx?info=EXLINK), Microsoft Talisman (http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=68335), Microsoft Live Search (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/factsheet/LiveSearchFS.mspx), Microsoft Vizcat (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/May99/VizactPR.mspx), Microsoft Windows Vista (http://www.microsoft.com/ireland/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/ultimate/default.mspx), Microsoft Smart Display (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/smartdisplay/default.mspx), Microsoft Encarta (http://www.microsoft.com/uk/encarta/default.mspx), Microsoft Equipt (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/959675), Microsoft Digital Image Suite (http://www.microsoft.com/products/imaging/default.mspx), Microsoft Automated Service Agents (http://www.microsoft.com/events/podcasts/default.aspx?topic=Topic-e1a84e52-b637-4385-9260-2f14fe077c07&pageId=x1052), Microsoft Forms Server (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/formsserver/default.aspx), MSN Groups (http://spaces.live.com/editorial/en-us/render/msngroupsclosure.htm), Microsoft Dynamics Entrepreneur (http://www.microsoft.com/australia/dynamics/entrepreneursolution/default.mspx), Microsoft Office Accounting (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/accounting/FX100518171033.aspx), Microsoft Office Live (http://www.officelive.com/), Microsoft Onecare (http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/3/default.htm), Microsoft PerformancePoint Server (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/performancepoint/FX101680481033.aspx), Microsoft Roundtable (http://www.microsoft.com/UC/products/roundtable.mspx) and Microsoft Sharepoint Designer (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/sharepointdesigner/FX100487631033.aspx).

do you just wheel out that list of links every once in a while, ive seen that list at least once before, not that im saying it doesn't prove a point:)

[monsterstack]

do you just wheel out that list of links every once in a while, ive seen that list at least once before, not that im saying it doesn't prove a point:)

You better believe it, sunshine. It took me ages to find all of those failed applications. The only other time I used it was here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=7319717&postcount=14). It's become somewhat larger, now. It's just important to point out that Microsoft's only cashcows are Windows and Office every once in a while. Almost everything else they've made is utter dirt. The gap is closing, my friend.

Sometimes the only way to deal with "not ready for prime time" copypasta is to serve up some delicious pasta of your own.

[Name change]

Well if it would be good with KDE 4 without the whole 4.0 fiasco I would definetly use it...
But that's very speculative, not even sure if I would gave it a try if I had to pay.
But still I voted sure...

[khelben1979]

no.
and it would not last long anyway.

Agreed.

[0per4t0r]

as long as it's completely the same as the open-source version, except for the fact that it's closed-source. (and free of charge)

[xArv3nx]

no, because then it'd just be a crappier version of windows. :<

[LepeKaname]

(I voted a definitely NO) But...

Giving a second thought, I'm not sure... you know, we have used many closed-software for free and we don't care (as far it is FREE). For example, Opera, Sun Java, VMWare, Skype, etc.

Just to give an example, VMWare is very good compared with other alternatives, even other OpenSource alternatives... And it may even be worthy to pay for it.

What happened with Ubuntu? at the beginning million of dollars were invested to improve Ubuntu, making it the number #1 nowadays. If the Ubuntu's kernel were close-sourced, would you still use it (for FREE)?
Of course, in order that to happen we should talk about licensing conflicts, but it is just a "suppose" case.

Just my opinion.

[MikeTheC]

No. It would fundamentally be no different than Mac OS X (at best) or Windows (at worst), and likely deteriorate into yet another mechanism to control the users.

In a word, "screw that".

Ok, that was two words. Hmm...

[pmlxuser]

#include <os_use.h>
int main()
{
while LINUX_CLOSE_SOURCE =true {
pmlxuser=dead;
void linux_use();
else
purchase_windows=true;
}
return 0;
}

[jchiar]

No.
I have almost stopped using Ubuntu, except that it is so good at reformatting. I toss it on to reformat a hdd or two then wander back into the free zone.
I prefer Debian OSFG to globs of closed source junk that I or someone can eventually find a workaround for.
I truly enjoy gNewSense. It is Debian based and has some Ubuntu Community pkgs available. I would rather go or use and learn on a system that does not want my IP# and a promise not to hack the buggy code that is just spyware with a glossy and flashy rendering.
I am disabled now and on a very meager income, I cannot afford windows or the AV/Spyware and other junk that is required to run it.
When Linux goes closed source, and some already has, then I shall go BeOS and Ruby and BASIC.

01001010010101010010101001