Linux apps - pay or not pay

[yester64]

thats what i am arguing with myself a little.
Is it a sacrilege to pay for linux app or is it ok and helps linux?

In the windows world (or the mac world) you pay as you go (use) programs. Linux is different and open.
But now i've seen program where you pay for.
Are there any people who paid for a linux program? I am just curious. Because sometimes you just want to have things running and not compile and try.:wink:

[ad_267]

I've paid for a few games, but nothing else. I don't see a problem with paying for Linux software if you want it.

[earthpigg]

i will purchase proprietary software for linux, but not if it is possible that i will become on reliant on it.

so, that pretty much limits it to games for me.

DEFCON and World of Goo, to be specific.

if i needed more space 'on the cloud', i would purchase it from dropbox.... but that wouldn't be purchasing software, so its a bit different.

[angryfirelord]

Sure, I'd pay for Linux software and I'd hope others would do the same so that we could create a market for it. The only reason I don't pay for Linux apps is because the software I do pay for doesn't run on Linux natively.

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

Sure, I'd pay for quality software if it was better than what I could get for free.

[solitaire]

I've no objection to paying for a linux app.
I just object to people who try to charge for opensource apps. ^_^

[cariboo]

I bought Crossover Office several years ago when OOO wasn't really all that usable. Now I don't need it any more.

[ElSlunko]

No Objection here. It is in the nature of certain software that almost relies on income as it needs to be industry / cutting edge.

[Ms_Angel_D]

I don't have a problem with Paying for Linux software. I am an Owner of Crossover Games, I love that it has made it possible for me to enjoy my games, that I otherwise wouldn't normally be able to play without Windows. But I would much rather buy software that is made for linux, and would have no qualms about doing so.

[cascade9]

Is it a sacrilege to pay for linux app or is it ok and helps linux?

In the windows world (or the mac world) you pay as you go (use) programs.

Depends on what programs you want to run. I never had the need to pay for any software on windows- Foobar did everything I needed for audio, EAC did all my audio ripping, VLC (once I found it, I used other free stuff before that) did my video, DVD shrink/DVD decrypter did DVD-> .vob, AutoGK did my vob-> avi, star office, then open office for writing, etc etc.

Sure, theres a lot of paid for software on windows, but unless your doing something pretty specialised, or cant be bothered to find a free version, you dont have to pay for software on windows.

I would never pay for any linux software that did any of my most common tasks.....if I had to I might as well move back to windows.

*Edit- I have paid for games on linux, but thats a different kettle of fish. IMO anyway.

[fancypiper]

I have no problem with paying for apps, especially when it benefits the Linux community, but if I pay, I usually donate to a project or distro rather than buying apps.

I am not a gamer.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

If you consider it your religion, then yes, I guess it's sacrilege. If you are a pragmatic, sensible person, then you are just fine doing whatever makes sense for you.

[clanky]

I use proprietary Linux based (but closed source) software at work, and believe me it is not cheap (10,000's of euros), like most things in life, if it is good enough then it is worth paying for.

Those who scream that everything should be free as in free beer are not doing it because they care about the FOSS philosophy, they are doing it because they are freeloaders who want everything handed to them on a plate.

[3rdalbum]

Ubuntu users seem to be free software pragmatists; they prefer free software (and then open-source non-GPL), but they will grudgingly use proprietary software if it will give them a much better experience.

I believe the same is true for commercial software; if it's worth the money compared to the open-source/Free-software equivilant (if any), Ubuntu users will buy it.

[Tibuda]

I see nothing wrong, and Canonical seems to also think like that, as they plan to integreate a store in Ubuntu Software Center.

[ikt]

Is it a sacrilege to pay for linux app

No, I have no idea who made it seem like donationware is the only way to profit from putting out a program.

Probably stallman..

[mivo]

In the windows world (or the mac world) you pay as you go (use) programs. Linux is different and open.
But now i've seen program where you pay for.

Incorrect on both accounts. There is plenty of free (as in speech and beer) open source software for Windows, and there are commercial Linux applications.

The philosophy of Linux is not that it is free as in "costs no money", but free as in freedom. A lot of what you use on Linux has been developed and/or is maintained by paid employees. You may not pay money for it, but it has cost someone money.

This is a bit of the problem with the newer generations of Linux users: they use it because it doesn't cost money, not chiefly because it provides you with more rights and fewer restrictions. Linux will never get any significant market share on the desktop if most of its users are unwilling to pay money (either for applications or services).

As I said elsewhere, you can't eat ideologies and they don't pay your bills.

[openuniverse]

.

[fatality_uk]

OPEN or FREE Software does NOT mean that a charge can't be made or sought. Linux is free as in speach, not as in beer :)

If a developer provides software that you want/need, then what would stop you purchasing it?

[Ms_Angel_D]

OPEN or FREE Software does NOT mean that a charge can't be made or sought. Linux is free as in speach, not as in beer :)

I was just teaching this point to my son last night.

[virusiidx]

Of course. I've purchased plenty of web hosting software (plesk/cpanel) for Linux. I know there are alternatives, but cpanel and plesk are pretty much the standard as for as professional automated hosting goes for clients.

[xuCGC002]

I'd pay for some apps. Heck, I already do buy some games (Quake for example).

[t0p]

I don't mind paying for an app sometimes. I've donated to a few development projects in the past. Not much, but some.

I've never bought a Linux app, as I haven't needed a commercial Linux app. Yet. But if/when I find that I do need a commercial app, I'll be able to buy it without feeling blasphemous.


I've no objection to paying for a linux app.
I just object to people who try to charge for opensource apps. ^_^

And why shouldn't people charge for open source software? Do open source software devs not need to eat?

[Bölvaður]

I've paid for a few games, but nothing else. I don't see a problem with paying for Linux software if you want it.

same here.

but there are many programs for linux that are worth buying depending on your needs.
Also consider donating money to software projects you often use. Like GIMP and Audacity as examples.

[szymon_g]

Linux is different and open.
But now i've seen program where you pay for.
Are there any people who paid for a linux program? I am just curious. Because sometimes you just want to have things running and not compile and try.:wink:

it is licence of program that determines that is it free, open source or closed source/payed for; not the license of operating system it is suppose to run on.
And yes- i see no reason why someone shouldn't pay for programs that he/she found worth it. not to mention, that linux would be nothing without help of firms, that, directly or not, are selling it (or as product, or as a service).

personally- the most usefull application that is worth of being payed for is Nero 4 Linux- i found nothing better (on gtk)

[dmengo]

I don't see why. A lot of enterprise Linux applications are immensely expensive.

Open-source software doesn't necessarily mean it’s always free. Developers need to eat and put food on the table. They certainly don't write Linux applications out of the kindness of their hearts.

Companies need to turn a profit; otherwise they'll go out of business. Linux wouldn't have the dominance in the server market today if it wasn't for the financial backing of big companies like Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, and IBM.

So yeah there's nothing wrong with paying with software.

[fatality_uk]

I was just teaching this point to my son last night.

Good Ms Angel, get 'em while they are young, muuuhhahha :D

[ticopelp]

I'm glad most Linux software is free, but I'd gladly pay for something that I really needed or wanted.

[openuniverse]

.

[yester64]

Well, i was just wondering really.
The software i am looking for is

mediasharing, the ones i tried out work partly but not really. uShare was promising but it fails to share images.
Games, i like to play some of my games from the windows world. Wine did not work out and to be honest, it takes me to long to get it right.

I know there are some paywares out there, but i struggled a little since i had the impression that you should use alternatives. Hope you don't get me wrong.
I don't oppose to pay for something if its worth it and saves me time. In the end you just want to have a system that runs and does what you want it to do.

And yes, someone pays anyway. And i like to see linux to succeed and to become a platform more people consider.
It just seemed so strange to pay, thats all. ;)

Does someone have a link or suggestions of good payware so i can compare. When is this Ubuntustore online? I missed that news.

thx :P

[openuniverse]

.

[Tibuda]

Does someone have a link or suggestions of good payware so i can compare.
I have only payed for Nero: http://www.nero.com/enu/linux4.html


When is this Ubuntustore online? I missed that news.
It is planned to sell software trough USC in october next year. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter#October%202010

[sudoer541]

I would pay! could you please start a poll?

[yester64]

I would pay! could you please start a poll?

sure, hope the questions are ok.

[sudoer541]

sure, hope the questions are ok.

hey thanks! thats perfect!

[mivo]

The only option that's missing is, "I'd pirate the commercial software.". It's one of the bigger issues for the Windows and Mac platforms.

[openuniverse]

.

[yester64]

The only thing i can add to it is this.
In my Amiga days it was kinda normal to trade software since most people did not have money anyway and the group of people i refer were kids or teens.
In the pc world it was not much different, but i remember that we had rent shops who would rent you software ((germany) time line monkey island) until they were forced out of business by the industry.
I have bough a lot of software on the pc and my last was a real disappointment. AcdSee in my case was really nice, but their database is so bad that it crashes the program constantly. They never improved on it and i found out later that it even has some security holes. Problem is, if you paid for software and it turns out bad, you thrown out your money. In my case, there was no improvement over releases to that issue. I used Vista, but i don't want to blame Vista for everything.
Regarding movies or entertainment in general, i wish companies would approach a different path for distributing.
I use netflix right now and i like to watch thing at an instant. No need to buy it, just watch it and no need to copy it either.
Of course it is about revenues, but i don't want to buy everything on movie or from tv.
There is of course now the option to buy on demand, which is nice too. But if i check like iTunes, you will be charges the same as i would get the boxset. That is also what made change my opinion about Steam. Once you buy it, you can never ever sale it. An approach the industry likes, but which limits your freedom as a consumer.

But i am all in for paying for a good software. My question circled around the assumption that under Linux most software is free and it seemed kinda strange to pay for software like in the windows world.
The more i dig into Linux the more i see that there are also paysoftware.

In the end you want to support the people who develop good software and put their heart into a good software.
I just have to see what suits me and what fits my needs.

I have to search a little more for good software and also payware for linux. Haven't seen a lot so far.

[Sin@Sin-Sacrifice]

I would pay but it better be pretty darn good and well outside the realm of usual. Also I think even if there's a fee it should be open source. I would much rather donate to the developer directly.

[julianb]

I use windows and linux, and I use a mix of "software libre", "closed source freeware", and closed source pay software.

But I have not paid a dime for software in a long time (my employer pays for lots of proprietary software). I'm not that interested in having "freedoms" i would never use anyway, such as the freedom to modify AVG antivirus. I really believe that freedoms you don't know HOW to use are fairly meaningless, so I'm really not a crusader for free software.

But I also am very resistant to paying money for software unless there's really no practical alternative. For one, the money is usually going to someone who really doesn't need the money, and for two, i'd rather give the money to someone who DOES need the money. Plus, if there is a feature that i do have time and motivation to add to a piece of software, it really IS a pain to be unable to modify the software.

Give me free software if possible, but I'll definitely use non-free software as a means to an end.

[openuniverse]

.

[Dr. C]

When considering paid applications on GNU / Linux they only make sense on a subscription or software as a service (SAS) basis. Paying for a compiled binary and expecting to use it for any length of time on GNU / Linux as is the case on Windows is close to impossible.

As a user of both GNU / Linux (Ubuntu, gNewSense and CentOS) and many different versions of Windows ranging from Windows 3.1 to Windows 7 one finds that GNU / Linux is designed for source compatibility making it an excellent platform for FLOSS or SAS propriety applications while Windows is designed for binary compatibility making binaries compiled for Windows the only binaries that have a future without the corresponding source code.

One can run a 10 or 15 year old Windows binary on a modern version of Windows or in many cases on a modern GNU / Linux distribution. Try running a 15 year old Linux binary on a modern GNU / Linux distribution.

[openuniverse]

.

[Dr. C]

...and unnecessary. you can pay for one and then use the next 20 versions. it's not like you have to pay for any copies, but certainly not every copy. saas is barely free software anyway. free software gives you control, saas limits it. but for something like identi.ca where you have the option of installing it on your own servers, then perhaps saas makes a little bit of sense.

If you mean Free (as in speech) Software you are paying for the source or for software support and most certainly not for the binary. A compiled GPL binary for example with out the corresponding source code cannot be legally distributed and if you pay for such a thing you are paying for pirated software.

[openuniverse]

.

[ticktricktrack]

I would pay for Textmate.
Well, I would pay for OSX.
And I would pay for a MAC.

Where did Ubuntu go?