proprietary software for Ubuntu

[dyess002]

Guys I think that proprietary software would make Ubuntu even more powerful it would give the user more power to do what they need, or for instance EA Sports could make games for Ubuntu I would buy software for Ubuntu and wouldn't mind doing it I didn't start using Ubuntu because everything was free.
A question - is Ubuntu shuning proprietary software because it cost or do they welcome proprietary software.
People would switch to Ubuntu a lot faster if they could go to Walmart and buy a game from their shelf and come home and play it on Ubuntu.That is one of the first questions asked when I try to sell Ubuntu to my friends ( will my existing software work with this Ubuntu ) and then and there they will be Biased about Ubuntu.
Would ubuntu be more sucessful if they would promote these companys to write software for Ubuntu?
I want to know what you guys think about this subject.

[swoll1980]

I think the PC Game market is going down the drain. I don't think now would be the time for developers to take a chance on Linux. That's just my opinion.

[aysiu]

I think you're confusing some issues here.

Ubuntu does not come with proprietary software as a matter of principle:
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy

But just because Ubuntu does not come with proprietary software doesn't mean it can't run proprietary software. As a matter of fact, you can install proprietary codecs with the ubuntu-restricted-extras package. You can also install closed source programs like Opera and Skype.

Nothing stops you from running proprietary software on Ubuntu, just because it is not there by default.

There are even some remixes of Ubuntu that include proprietary software by default (Linux Mint is well-known for this).

If you want to be able to buy a game off the shelf and install it on Ubuntu, though, you have to complain to the gaming companies. It's up to them to make Linux versions of their games. Ubuntu developers are not in a position to take other people's games and make Linux versions of them. Too much work. And not legal in many countries.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

[Twitch6000]

BTW if you want to run any ea games just use cedega <.<.

[JordyD]

As aysiu said, you're missing the point. It's not that proprietary software costs anything, it's because it's not open source, or free (as in speech), as some call it.

[dyess002]

I just believe that if big software company's would put Linux software on the shelves that it would open Linux up more, more people would consider Ubuntu.It would give the consumer the best of both worlds.
Maybe our programers will put more time on making software compatible to their software instead of them making their programs compatible with Ubuntu. That would be one way of taking on the problem, Yes i know we have Wine and crossover and Virtuflbox but they won't work when you want it the most, maby the programers will focus on making these prgrams like wine run better with proprietary software.
I beleive that this is the stick in the mudd, if I had the confidence that Wine would run any program that comes it's way I could get a lot of people to try Ubuntu and they would stick with it.

[dyess002]

As aysiu said, you're missing the point. It's not that proprietary software costs anything, it's because it's not open source, or free (as in speech), as some call it.


That said it! proprietary software is just like a no no for people who made Ubuntu,like a pride thing that this is proprietary free, if they would get away from that mindset and offer proprietary software, opportunity will open up twofold they could move forward a lot faster.
I know that is just me thinking, but never the less it is in my craw.
Is there another way. If we settle for what it is we will never move forward.

[aysiu]

Maybe our programers will put more time on making software compatible to their software instead of them making their programs compatible with Ubuntu. How would we do that exactly?

Linux is playing about as nice as it can. The source is open. It's able to be modified and redistributed. All the default programs on Linux distributions use open formats.

I'm sorry, but it is up to the software companies to do ports. If, for example, EA didn't want to make a Mac version of Sims 3, it wouldn't be up to Apple to make Sims 3. Sims 3 is an EA game. It is up to EA to make ports. Likewise, it isn't up to Ubuntu (or any other Linux distribution) to make ports of Windows-only software. It up to those companies to make Linux ports... or at least open up the source code, so Linux developers can compile their own binaries.

Seriously, you've got it all backwards. Microsoft doesn't make AutoCAD. Apple doesn't make Creative Suite. Software companies produce software. If their software makes it to an operating system, it is up to the software companies to make that happen. If they are too lazy to do it, they can open up their source code, as Linux application developers have done, so that Linux developers can make the port themselves.

[dyess002]

As aysiu said, you're missing the point. It's not that proprietary software costs anything, it's because it's not open source, or free (as in speech), as some call it.


That said it! proprietary software is just like a no no for people who made Ubuntu,like a pride thing that this is proprietary free, if they would get away from that mindset and offer proprietary software, opportunity will open up twofold they could move forward a lot faster.
I know that is just me thinking, but never the less it is in my craw.
Is there another way. If we settle for what it is we will never move forward.
Maby the programers could work more toward making programs like Wine work with Windows software improve it, it would be then that we would have the confidence that if we bought a software from best Buy it would work with wine, just that would change a lot of views.

[aysiu]

You're not even reading my posts, are you?

It's not as if the Wine developers said "Hey, we don't really need 100% compatibility with Windows apps. Let's settle for 70-80% instead." They're doing the best they can. It's Microsoft that isn't cooperating.

If you want Windows apps to work in Wine, complain to Microsoft. If you want proprietary apps to run on Ubuntu, complain to the software companies that make those apps.

Just because Ubuntu does not include proprietary apps by default doesn't mean Ubuntu is unable to run proprietary apps. And plenty of other Linux distributions do include proprietary apps by default (Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, Mepis, Sabayon). They do not fare any better with the general public than Ubuntu does, I assure you.

If you continue to ignore my posts, I'll just stop posting them.

[dyess002]

I don't really know AYSIU I am just thinking to hard I quess. Trying to come up with answers that I know that I don't have.

[aysiu]

I don't really know AYSIU I am just thinking to hard I quess. Trying to come up with answers that I know that I don't have.
The problem is there is no simple answer.

There isn't some magic bullet of "If Ubuntu just did this, everyone would switch away from Windows." If there were, believe me, the Ubuntu developers would have thought of it by now.

There are strong market forces at work. Microsoft will not let its dominance go without a fight, and they have a lot of money and a lot of lawyers.

[dyess002]

Sorry aysiu (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=21941) I was typing while you was posting, I read the post but after I reposted.

[konqueror7]

we must first gain a large amount of OS market share against windows and mac, before we will be able to see more commercial applications natively running on linux...

why would software companies produce software to a market they wouldn't get profit?

do you think adobe would benefit in selling a "photoshop for linux"? how many will buy if there is already GIMP? 1? 5? 10? i think companies like adobe wouldn't waste their time to gain a couple of bucks.

the most thing we need from software companies are those who hardware specifics, like hardware and interfaces. they should have the responsibility to provide their customer native drivers and interfaces.

[dyess002]

I have started a group on facebook UBUNTU ( LINUX ) I am trying to get people in my community to see that there is a option when it comes to a Windows operating system and I am trying to let it be like a help desk to help some get started in Ubuntu. I can answer a few simple questions but I also can steer them in the right way to get answers.
i would love it if some of you guys would join and help me out give me ideas if you are interested I would make you an Admin.
I don't need smart alec pepole because that will turn them away fast.
And if you want to do the same thing I will be glad to help you out.
Here is the link http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2011017&id=1228383488#/group.php?gid=86212481914


I could use a lot of ideas.
Thanks
David

[loell]

I have started a group on facebook UBUNTU ( LINUX )


if youre into fracebook, why not join the official facebook page for Ubuntu?
http://www.facebook.com/ubuntulinux

[automaton26]

Sorry, but:


Software companies only exist to make money.
In most cases, the cost of supporting Linux is greater than the extra sales it would generate.

That's why most proprietary PC software is Windows only, and it would only change if the market share of Linux on the desktop increased by a significant amount. There are only two ways around this chicken-and-egg scenario:


Dual-boot with Windows, and just live with it.
Make a time or money contribution to the Wine project (I did) and hope/request they will support your software.

[azangru]

do you think adobe would benefit in selling a "photoshop for linux"? how many will buy if there is already GIMP? 1? 5? 10?

Well, GIMP works on Windows and MacOS just as well, but people still buy Photoshop for those platforms. The answer to your question therefore is: a lot :)

[konqueror7]

Well, GIMP works on Windows and MacOS just as well, but people still buy Photoshop for those platforms. The answer to your question therefore is: a lot :)

okay, there was a loophole,,,haha...but don't forget, were talking about commercial/closed-source ones, not open-source, so the reach and portability of the software is far much greater in open-source...

what if you take into consideration the number of users per OS? now Microsoft has approx. 94% of the share, mac 4%, and Linux 1%. also take into consideration the what people will use in conjunction with other apps, say company1 and company2 makes software complimenting each other.

if your in business, you would choose clearly Microsoft as your platform because your product can reach out more farther. what about mac? mac still has 4x more share than linux, also mac was much first to reach out to average users, in which companies were able to develop earlier.

if linux has not been isolated (as some say) to the labs and scientific, or just reached out to average users earlier, we would have commercial software by now. taking a look at what ubuntu is doing now, i think we will have pretty much more software that are on windows and mac, that are natively running...

well, still just my opinion though...:D

[koleoptero]

If you continue to ignore my posts, I'll just stop posting them.

Don't, others are reading them as well :P

[earthpigg]

doing your part to support existing closed-source games for linux, dyess002?

World of Goo and DEFCON are both closed-source, DRM-Free, came out within the last few years, Ubuntu compatible, and loads of fun. :)

[aysiu]

Sorry aysiu (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=21941) I was typing while you was posting, I read the post but after I reposted. Sorry. I'm getting a little snippety in my old age.



do you think adobe would benefit in selling a "photoshop for linux"? how many will buy if there is already GIMP? 1? 5? 10? i think companies like adobe wouldn't waste their time to gain a couple of bucks. I'm with you here. Recently someone posted a poll asking how many people would actually buy Photoshop for Linux. I think it was 42.

Oh, wait! Now it's gone up to 51 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1181688). Only 26% of Ubuntu Forums members would buy Linux Photoshop.

You would have to assume three things in order for that number to make a profit for Adobe: All 51 of those people who answered the poll in the affirmative answered truthfully (they would indeed pay for Photoshop Linux and would have the money to pay for it) Mark Shuttleworth estimate of there being 8 million Ubuntu users is correct The Forums community here is just as likely to pay for Linux Photoshop as the Ubuntu population at large If all three of those things are true, Adobe would stand to gain billions of dollars in revenue from porting Photoshop to Linux.

I'm skeptical on all three counts, though.

[XubuRoxMySox]

If you want codecs by default and live in the United States (or any other nation in which it is a legal and ethical issue), I would consider Freespire (http://freespire.org) instead of Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, and others that include them. All the needed codecs, drivers, etc but without any legal issues and no nagging matters of conscience.

To be fair, though, Linux Mint offers a codecs-free version for users in those nations in which it may be a problem (and in most of the world, it is not). The user makes his or own own choice in the matter when choosing between the two versions of Mint.

[jrusso2]

Freespire appears to be dead. Last update over a year ago. Its still based on Feisty and support is gone on it.

[dyess002]

Sorry. I'm getting a little snippety in my old age.

I'm with you here. Recently someone posted a poll asking how many people would actually buy Photoshop for Linux. I think it was 42.

Oh, wait! Now it's gone up to 51 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1181688). Only 26% of Ubuntu Forums members would buy Linux Photoshop.

You would have to assume three things in order for that number to make a profit for Adobe:

All 51 of those people who answered the poll in the affirmative answered truthfully (they would indeed pay for Photoshop Linux and would have the money to pay for it)
Mark Shuttleworth estimate of there being 8 million Ubuntu users is correct
The Forums community here is just as likely to pay for Linux Photoshop as the Ubuntu population at large

If all three of those things are true, Adobe would stand to gain billions of dollars in revenue from porting Photoshop to Linux.

I'm skeptical on all three counts, though.

Who is to say that This 26% of people who would pay for Adobe would not rise to 60 % if made available, It has to be looked at long term. Yes they will have to take a chance as with any business decision.

[JordyD]

Who is to say that This 26% of people who would pay for Adobe would not rise to 60 % if made available, It has to be looked at long term. Yes they will have to take a chance as with any business decision.

I doubt 60% of the Windows community use Photoshop. Photoshop is for designers, and not many people who aren't designers are going to pay $700 for software they might never use.

Plus, 26% of 8 million is a lot of money.

8,000,000 * .26 * 700 = 1,456,000,000 (USD)

(assuming that they sell Photoshop at $700, I didn't check)

[DeadSuperHero]

I dunno. As a rule of thumb, I've never ever paid for a copy of Photoshop on Windows or MacOS. I used to use it all the time, but GIMP's been really good in that respect. If Pixel went FOSS, or GIMP improved the user experience and plugins just a bit more, I feel that we wouldn't really even need Photoshop on the system. But my views are old and crusty in that respect.

[konqueror7]

I doubt 60% of the Windows community use Photoshop. Photoshop is for designers, and not many people who aren't designers are going to pay $700 for software they might never use.

Plus, 26% of 8 million is a lot of money.

8,000,000 * .26 * 700 = 1,456,000,000 (USD)

(assuming that they sell Photoshop at $700, I didn't check)

also they have to compete with GIMP. GIMP has been the preferred graphic application in linux, and it will be hard for Adobe to sell Photoshop to Linux users who are already using a free and functional application. Why would they pay $700 for just editing some photos.

and why would they buy a ported linux photoshop if you already have an existing photoshop that is able to run under wine?

so that estimated price might be much more lesser than it is.

[monsterstack]

Photoshop is one of those applications often trotted out (along with AutoCAD and others) as being one of the things holding Linux back from taking over the desktop. This is obviously nonsense, as anyone with a sense of logic will realise immediately. Games are another story, as many more people play games. Most of the people I know use consoles for games, however. It would be nice to see these applications all working natively on Linux, but even so, as the list of things you can't do on Linux gets ever smaller with each passing year, the claims of the trolls who insist that it isn't ready yet grow ever more ridiculous.

[dyess002]

The first question that is asked when I tell someone about Linux is ( Will my existing programs work with Linux? ) That question is the reason Linux is held back. It is not just a single program it is all of the software that has already been paid for. and most bought software is games.
If Wine would focus more on making all Microsoft software work that would be a big breakthrough.

[monsterstack]

The first question that is asked when I tell someone about Linux is ( Will my existing programs work with Linux? ) That question is the reason Linux is held back. It is not just a single program it is all of the software that has already been paid for. and most bought software is games.
If Wine would focus more on making all Microsoft software work that would be a big breakthrough.

If a PC gamer asked me about Linux, I'd tell him to back away if he was considering using it as a gaming rig. Maybe he can dual-boot, or maybe he can use it on one of his non-gaming machines (like a laptop or an old piece of junk he doesn't want to get rid of or something), but for gaming? Nope. Sure, it would be nice if games ran on Wine a little better, but nobody can do anything about that apart from the folks who make the games. Linux developers have done everything humanly possible to provide support for traditionally Windows-only software. Thankfully, most of the best (non-gaming) software is already cross-compatible (Firefox, Thunderbird, Openoffice, GIMP, Inkscape, etc). The more people who use Linux, the more incentive there is for games developers to port their software over.

[konqueror7]

yes, in some way linux is held back because of your question "Will my existing programs work with Linux?", but that is why we have free alternatives, to temporarily or if not, replace our windows applications.

if you want more commercial native linux applications, the big companies are the ones needed to make the move, not the small ones; and gaming software is not a priority as of now, what we need is better support for our hardwares. and when wine will catch up to a state that it will be like "XP", microsoft will make sure that the wine team will always have a new problem to catch up (like in sony's PSP, hackers' vs sony's firmware). microsoft is an OS developer and an application developer, they will make sure that their software will use their OS. can you think microsoft being happy with people transitioning to linux and not using their OSs anymore, and only using their application such as ms office? microsoft will loose a great amount of revenue in such scenario.

[konqueror7]

If a PC gamer asked me about Linux, I'd tell him to back away if he was considering using it as a gaming rig. Maybe he can dual-boot, or maybe he can use it on one of his non-gaming machines (like a laptop or an old piece of junk he doesn't want to get rid of or something), but for gaming? Nope. Sure, it would be nice if games ran on Wine a little better, but nobody can do anything about that apart from the folks who make the games. Linux developers have done everything humanly possible to provide support for traditionally Windows-only software. Thankfully, most of the best (non-gaming) software is already cross-compatible (Firefox, Thunderbird, Openoffice, GIMP, Inkscape, etc). The more people who use Linux, the more incentive there is for games developers to port their software over.

i agree with you there, and you also need to convert a wide audience of gamers to be able for developers to port their games.

[dyess002]

I think that DELL is doing Ubuntu a great favour by selling Ubuntu as a alternate operating system. Dell will affect the way people look at Linux one way or another ( I Hope faverable ) So with Dell selling systems with ubuntu on it, Maby Wine will take incentive and make their software bettter. Others may see a profit in this also. Millions are being made with Linux products. so there is hope for the gamers.

[monsterstack]

Maby Wine will take incentive and make their software bettter.

So, what, you think the Wine devs are intentionally making Wine incompatible with games, or that they're too lazy, or what?

[earthpigg]

I think that DELL is doing Ubuntu a great favour by selling Ubuntu as a alternate operating system. Dell will affect the way people look at Linux one way or another ( I Hope faverable ) So with Dell selling systems with ubuntu on it, Maby Wine will take incentive and make their software bettter. Others may see a profit in this also. Millions are being made with Linux products. so there is hope for the gamers.

as a dell mini 9 owner, i am of the opinion that they made quite a few mistakes with their modifications to ubuntu that, i fear, will reflect poorly on ubuntu in the eyes of some. i dumped dell's version of ubuntu when an update broke my system.

they would have been far better off, in my opinion, with just shipping vanilla ubuntu and using ubuntu's repos - if anything, the only thing they should have done was make installing i386 apps automated and easier. end user should not need to hack stuff in order to get the skype or opera .deb to work.... and, of course, keep the codecs installed by default.

[dyess002]

So, what, you think the Wine devs are intentionally making Wine incompatible with games, or that they're too lazy, or what?

No I am not insinuating anything about Wine being Lazy,or making Wine incompatible with games.
I think that WINE is at a standstill have become stagnated, not keeping up with hardware. it is like they wrote the program and then put it out there and left it.
Yes I know that there is no money involved and it was wrote by volunteers.
But I think that Wine is a great program that could be made much better.

[aysiu]

I think you misunderstand. Wine development has not stagnated. Those developers work hard. The problem is that full binary compatibility with a closed source operating system involves a lot of reverse engineering, which is difficult when the makers of that operating system do not want your project to succeed.

[monsterstack]

No I am not insinuating anything about Wine being Lazy,or making Wine incompatible with games.
I think that WINE is at a standstill have become stagnated, not keeping up with hardware. it is like they wrote the program and then put it out there and left it.
Yes I know that there is no money involved and it was wrote by volunteers.
But I think that Wine is a great program that could be made much better.

There are huge swathes of the Win32 API that are still a complete mystery to the Wine devs. They are not really getting any help. Wine has been in active development for an extremely long time, now. If you happen to notice, it gets updated pretty regularly too. That thing has millions of lines of code now.

[dyess002]

I think you misunderstand. Wine development has not stagnated. Those developers work hard. The problem is that full binary compatibility with a closed source operating system involves a lot of reverse engineering, which is difficult when the makers of that operating system do not want your project to succeed.

I guess you are right.
Thanks for the comments